RAN tlhe bet lisbe
ahs SEAS HS
— —— i a s.
enn oe
Vai si a) ANN she pase fips se
RN Aa MV as Ty!
i ay
SEALE a
Rev a
MEN Me Ter athy
baenty
SEAR aie ee)
Hie nas agent aha
s Hache :
what Y Perea Peh ane oe FNS
oT PRG ap SPOEEAS LT Ay
SU i ASE TASER OF ty Bt at SHIN,
PALES Shiv hand esa Hal gE OORT thet ab ah
SAAN Sexiy gs AVS Fatt aren USD RRM gate Mest NY ti Astle
: haecha in “ nis SANE AVON tart tea Van
aesttaing wet adt we
sy Qioe OY, PRT Ct Rist ast Meslay Pahaineray aa ya! Sone Frat arewi Ng?) 2 bs
BA} + Allee: ASSnans Vb aTR tN
att Seibel botiee “i She a ae ne VC Siete lV a hig
fe MA NCU GE TROT TANT QUEM Hgth att aehatigsl hry HVS
Pagwrmawed yy Shad thay “ ‘i ahaa whe tdait hl sine habe
that ae Seta gph a edd RIVET BENT gD athe baleen we
VERO Ost ON TEAR atTAL 0} OWS OT Sy
. any ree Site oe Ses Sav st
ENTS AAN CARY SBME IP beg d ON GR
OA AS hs! ny Piha AN e dele,
Bae SR SAPNA GANS ath Waryaharhach areal} WYN halts
ORME TE IND Mane saben veoahs Suit slate
ct
WAIST AUOE AEA Ove vee halt perce
x peda ESTES he Spake Yap
Hans
Le TN ST a ah
MPGAT PENNE ST enya ae het a at
SOR RIN St eo APS at Yd
SEV A ety
ni
sthatatenniats
WE SNENS
ies
SUR EOS ETT SE
x hel Wa “a aise HSIN Sav asthe ah) re als
a at oat
AAP Ath e EE VM ted
HS etay
Si eagctaS
aie Ne 4S
Nae
‘ SN aren morn eae
abe MAHL AA SRA TOU ES PATS SEIS STN) Sil SI
Wai VARNES DALAL at eT GIES Fa SIGS) pag ee a
JR AWN ath PNT haa GTR RGANSIN
Wathgeh bg POLL Sosstadeabienhahing Ate
sey see
Shake bee
sth SATE STATS ie ANS Percents i
WEIMER OR EN
VANE Saray
rity
eeragyos
Taney ONG RH Fue ihe Fatale
Pare discern
Vt WG Nd ey nae ee eats
Hemrke Sey he NNN eda saya ONT
5 AWAY SNAP
ai Sate Vente a Oke hey
anys Seta re anv hy ie SAH deli as
Salinity =
a Ny TENG
PRES RS tae
NOVELS OTR
Vass ected
Siibath NIN
TR VEINS art
MET Se A atte lpesetiogd
a
(aan Sateen
ey ENTS
Pop reienserrien
aes Sg :
SC A EES BENE IT
A asad
POE Naas
EEG OT Sy at
NEE Pa eiN EUS.
MING VIN Seseti athe ae
Se UTS he he Sate iS bein e
SN Taras oa he BE
Tred SS,
Bele SA heey
Sori kate te
oh
Ne A Oa
; PACA by be
Ta ae dag ©
SLRS Ma
Pee ea
egetioitia. 8
Pah e LONG) Set ee
eos) OMe «
SA RRS EH ENED
SON TEL MOTE aN Eg SY
See Baby
Mh ng er ele eye
Shela Dd piT
Sat ie ay
wei NPs gt
ASUS en ae
er EiSwesY Ha
yy Tatlg te Lael nite
POV IIA Het Se
Fra
BEIM
ES}
sh te Bane tes
HST at
Sie ey
f
q
,
ny
io east
eae”
Lih4 |, )
v
i
ne
esis}
uu}
Volume 68, Part 1, 31 March 2011, pp. 1-92 8 ISSN 0007-5167
The Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature
of the International Commission -
on Zoological Nomenclature -
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a registered charity
(no. 211944) based in the U.K. The annual subscription for 2011 is £200 or US$340 or €280,
postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £100 or
US$170 or €140. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to:
The Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. +44 207 942 5653; e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk)
Electronic communication is preferred. Manuscripts sent by post should include a digital
copy of the text and figures.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Officers |
President Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands)
Vice-President Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S. A.)
Executive Secretary Dr E. Michel (U.K.)
Councillors indicated below with *
Members
Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga* Prof. S. Lim (Malaysia; Parasitology)
(Spain; Coleoptera) Prof. A. Minelli (U/taly; Myriapoda)
Dr A. Ballerio (Italy; Coleoptera) Prof. P. K. L. Ng (Singapore;
Dr N. G. Bogutskaya (Russia; Ichthyology) Crustacea, Ichthyology)
Prof. P. Bouchet* (France; Mollusca) Dr T. Pape (Denmark; Diptera)
Prof. D. J. Brothers Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera)
(South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof. D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista)
Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S.A.; Cnidaria) Dr R. Pyle* (U.S.A.; Ichthyology)
Dr M. J. Grygier (Japan; Crustacea) Dr G. Rosenberg* (U.S.A.; Mollusca)
Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof. P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera)
Dr M. S. Harvey (Australia; Arachnida) Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata)
Prof. J. Kojima (Japan; Hymenoptera) Dr J. E. Winston (U.S.A.; Bryozoa)
Dr M. Kottelat (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr D. Yanega (U.S.A.; Entomology)
Dr F.-T. Krell (U.S.A.; Coleoptera) Dr Z.-Q. Zhang (New Zealand; Acari)
Dr S. O. Kullander (Sweden; Ichthyology) Prof. H. Zhou (China; Coleoptera)
Prof. Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera)
Secretariat
Dr E. Michel (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor-in-Chief)
Dr S. Nikolaeva (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Editor)
S. Tracey (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Administrator)
N. Dale-Skey Papilloud M.Sc. (Bulletin Zoologist)
E. W. Baker (Webmaster and Development Officer )
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
Dr M. Dixon (Chairman)
Ms M. J. Clifford-Turner (Treasurer and Managing Director)
Abstracts of Applications and Opinions, Comments in full and details of the names published
in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology are posted on the
Commission’s website (http://iczn.org)
Cover image: Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa (Linnaeus, 1758), the European mole cricket (Latin:
gryllus — cricket, talpa — mole, from its fossorial limbs, fine hairs and subterranean habit).
Widespread in the Western Palaearctic region and introduced into parts of the U.S.A. this
insect can be an agricultural pest in significant numbers, although in the U.K. it is extremely
rare and subject to a U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan (report sightings to g.beccaloni@
nhm.ac.uk). Detail from plate 456 of British Entomology: Original Drawings, vol. 10, by John
Curtis (1862) (© Natural History Museum, London).
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2011
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 68, part 1 (pp. 1-92) 31 March 2011
Notices
(1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission
should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the
front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the
Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two
page form in each volume and available online (at http://iczn.org/content/guidelines-
case-preparation) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors
for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as
opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applica-
tions and, as far as it can, check the main nomenclatural references in applications.
Correspondence should be sent by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible.
(2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been
published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be
submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or
against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible.
Comments may be edited (see instructions for submission of comments at
http://Aiczn.org/content/instructions-comments).
(3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the
Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the
Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more
about the list at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list.
(4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on
nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal
with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes
should be sent to the Executive Secretary.
New applications to the Commission
The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the
Bulletin (volume 67, part 4, 20 December 2010) went to press. Under Article 82 of
the Code, the existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the
Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published.
CASE 3543: Stromateus niger Bloch, 1795 (currently Parastromateus niger;
Osteichthyes, Perciformes, CARANGIDAE): proposed conservation of prevailing usage
by the suppression of its senior synonym Coryphaena apus Briinnich. E.H. Williams
Jr. & L. Bunkley-Williams.
CASE 3544: Apis armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed
conservation by designation of a neotype. M.S. Engel, U. Kotthoff & T. Wappler.
2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
CASE 3545: Heterohelix (Foraminiferida, HETEROHELICIDAE): proposed suppres-
sion. M.D. Georgescu.
CASE 3546: Radiolites fleuriausa d’Orbigny, 1842 (currently Praeradiolites
fleuriausus; Bivalvia, RADIOLITIDAE): proposed replacement as type species of Prae-
radiolites Douvillé, 1902 by Sphaerulites ponsiana @ Archiac, 1835. J.M. Pons & E.
Vicens.
CASE 3547: Cryptotermes dudleyi Banks, 1918 (Insecta, Isoptera, KALOo-
TERMITIDAE): proposed precedence over Calotermes havilandi parasita Wasmann,
1910. K. Krishna & M.S. Engel.
CASE 3548: A proposal for the treatment of Mémoires pour servir a histoire des
insectes by De Geer (1752-1778) and the additional volume by Retzius (1783). F.
Wieland and F. Welter-Schultes.
CASE 3549: Macropsalis fabulosa Phillipps & Grimmett, 1932 (Arachnida,
Opiliones, PHALANGIOIDEA): proposed replacement of the neotype. C.K. Taylor &
M.S. Harvey.
CASE 3550: Graeteriella Kiefer, 1937 (Copepoda, Cyclopoida, CYCLOPIDAE):
proposed precedence over Graeteriella Brehm, 1926. F. Fiers.
CASE 3551: Orithyia Fabricius, 1798 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura): pro-
posed precedence over Orithuja Weber, 1795. P.K.L. Ng, D. Guinot & P.J.F. Davie.
CASE 3552: Cerithiopsis tubercularis var. nana Jeffreys, 1867 (currently Cerithi-
opsis nana; Mollusca, Gastropoda, CERITHIOPSIDAE): proposed conservation of usage
of the specific name by suppression of Cerithiopsis nana Mayer, 1864. A. Cecalupo &
E. Robba.
CASE 3553: Helix atlantica Morelet & Drouét, 1857 (Mollusca, Gastropoda,
Pulmonata): proposed conservation of current usage by designation of a neotype.
A.M. de Frias Martins, L. Silva, K. Jordaens & T. Backeljau.
CASE 3554: Anaphes Haliday, 1833 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation
of A. fuscipennis Haliday, 1833 as the type species. J.T. Huber, J.S. Noyes, A.
Polaszek & S. Triapitsyn.
Page charges — new policy
The costs of publishing the BZN now require us to request page charges of £30 per
page for all Cases, General Articles and for Comments that are one full printed page
or longer. We do not want to discourage contributions to the work of the
Commission, thus a waiver is available for authors who are unable to pay. A waiver
form is available on the ICZN website (http://iczn.org/content/page-charges) and
should be signed by you and your head of department if you are in a professional
position and include a brief explanation of why you are unable to help support
publication costs. Examples of appropriate waiver considerations include authors in
unwaged positions or in countries with currency exchange difficulties. If a waiver is
not received and approved at the time of acceptance of your contribution for
publication, you will be sent an invoice for your page costs. Payment can be accepted
by PayPal, credit card or cheque.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 3
The International Trust For Zoological Nomenclature
The International Trust For Zoological Nomenclature (the Trust) was founded in
1947 to manage the Commission’s financial matters. It is a registered charity, based
in the U.K. (No. 211944). At present, the Trust consists of 27 members from
13 countries. Discussion of the Trust’s activities can be found on the ICZN website
http://iczn.org/.
Members of the Trust
Dr M. Dixon (U.K.) (Chairman and Director)
Dr H.M.F.P. André (Belgium)
Dr M.N. Arai (Canada)
Mr H.S. Barlow (Malaysia)
Prof. D.J. Brothers (South Africa) Commissioner
Ms M.J. Clifford-Turner (U.K.) Treasurer & Managing Director
Mr P. Cooke (U.K.)
The Earl of Cranbrook (U.K.)
Prof. R.A. Fortey (U.K.)
Dr U. Fritz (Germany)
Prof. J.I. dos R Furtado (Singapore)
Dr M.K. Howarth (U.K.)
Prof. T. Jones (U.K.)
Dr S. Knapp (U.K.)
Prof. Dr O. Kraus (Germany)
Dr C. Kropf (Switzerland)
Mr A. McCullough (U.K.)
Prof. A. Minelli (Italy) Commissioner
Dr T. Nishikawa (Japan)
Dr J.L. Norenburg (U.S.A.)
Dr M.J. Oates (U.K.)
Mr R. Pethiyagoda (Sri Lanka)
Dr A. Polaszek (U.K.)
Mr N.J. Robinson (U.K.)
Ms R. Sangster (U.K.)
Dr H.-D. Sues (U.S.A.)
ir. Tiller (France)
Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (U.K.)
4. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
What’s in a name? Attenborough & Fortey on animals
ICZN fundraising lecture
Sir David Attenborough and Prof. Richard Fortey presented a lecture celebrating the
work of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) and the
global need for stable zoological nomenclature on 16 December 2010. Nearly 700
people filled the beautiful Ondaatje Theatre of the Royal Geographical Society,
London, to capacity. Despite cold and rainy London weather, the hall was abuzz
with anticipation as people arrived to see these titans of natural history presentation
and palaeo and earth sciences writing. A busy and highly efficient team of volunteers
helped people get checked in, directed them to the stand selling books by the
speakers, to the bar and to their seats. Members of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature (ITZN) welcomed specially invited VIPs. The excitement
was palpable.
The lecture began with a warm welcome and insightful introduction from
Dr Michael Dixon, Chairman of the Trust. Professor Fortey then followed with a
lively explanation of why biological nomenclature is so critical and how the
Commission works. He continued with examples from history and his own work on
trilobites that revealed the rich background and meaning in taxonomic names. The
audience laughed at names that say it all — about the organism, or about the
taxonomist and what they were really expressing with a particular animal name.
Sir David then took the stage, relating examples of scientific names that each told a
story in themselves. His ability to imbue every description with images and emotion
Fue
Fig. 1. Sir David Attenborough and Prof. Richard Fortey bringing nomenclature to life on the stage of
the Royal Geographical Society. (Image: E. Michel/NHM Interactive Media Film Unit).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 5
Fig. 2. Sir David Attenborough has been a long- Fig. 3. Sir David telling the audience that he
term proponent of the ICZN. He and Professor
Richard Fortey are old friends and have recently
filmed together in Morocco for the BBC special
First Life. (Photo: R. Fortey).
thought Linnaeus was making a nomenclatural
joke about early collectors with the name Para-
disaea apoda, as even then no taxonomist would
have seriously believed that the Great Bird of
Paradise had neither feet nor wings. (Image: E.
Michel/NHM Interactive Media Film Unit).
Fig. 5. After the lecture both speakers enthusias-
tically settling in to sign books and talk with their
fans, who also got to know each other while
having a drink in the historic RGS Map Room
and waiting in the long queue. (Photo: S. Knapp)
Fig. 4. Professor Fortey lecturing in front of the
ZooBank poster. (Image: E. Michel/NHM Inter-
active Media Film Unit).
brought the audience to the edges of their seats. Sir David brought life to stories
about nomenclature with the addition of adventure, farce, surprise, competition,
irony, sycophancy and beauty. Both speakers spoke of the combination of honour
and uncertain implications of having taxa named after them. Perhaps examining too
closely why a giant flat trilobite, an extinct prickly thing, or the first vertebrate known
to copulate has been given your name might lead to too many additional,
unnecessary questions!
It was clear that, in the mght hands, the topic of nomenclature can be made
stimulating and entertaining for a general audience. This event was one step in
increasing public awareness of the importance of the work of the ICZN. The evening
showed that there is public goodwill towards our work, especially when presented by
paragons of science communication.
6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
In addition to the pure enjoyment of the moment, the event yielded other successes.
Sir David has agreed to become a patron of the ITZN fundraising campaign, joining
Professor E.O. Wilson in giving high profile support for the work of the Commission.
A modest profit was realised from the evening, several additional donations were
received, connections were made with additional potential promoters and one
audience member was moved to volunteer to run a marathon with charitable
fundraising on behalf of the ICZN! A professional film was made of the lecture,
which will be distributed to potential funders and to the wider taxonomic community
in various ways. Follow-up work using this valuable outreach resource will help the
ITZN develop a sustainable funding source for the future.
We thank the speakers for the energy they poured into making this a brilliant
evening. Support through logistical help or financial contribution was provided by
the NHM, the Royal Geographical Society, publishers Harper Collins Publishing,
Random House Publishing, Neal’s Yard Dairy. Slides and images were courtesy of
Ellinor Michel, Richard Pyle, George McGavin, Vince Smith, ARKive, NHM
Picture Library, Warren Photographic, Bios/Dominique Halleux.
The NHM Interactive Media Film Unit coordinated a professional film crew from
Creation Company and provided staging. Edited clips will be available online and a
full version of the film will be available by for a minimum donation to the ICZN.
Information will be available here: iczn.org/content/fundraising lecture.
ZooBank progress report
Richard L. Pyle (ZooBank Developer)
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.
(e-mail: deepreef@bishopmuseum.org)
Commissioner Richard Pyle attended a meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand, in
late November 2010 to discuss the data model for the Global Names Usage Bank
(GNUB), which is planned to serve as the data backbone for ZooBank. Attendees
included representatives of the three major partners of International Plant Names
Index (IPNI) — including the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Harvard University, and
the Australian Plant Names Index (APNI) — as well as representatives for Index
Fungorum (IF) and the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA). The purpose of the meeting
was to review, in detail, the data model that had emerged from previous discussions
involving architects of ZooBank and Index Fungorum, and determine its suitability
for use in the next generation implementation of IPNI. The meeting was intensive,
and extremely productive. The consensus data model that emerged from the meeting
is being implemented now, and will serve as the live data backbone for a revised
ZooBank website, scheduled for release later this year. Meanwhile, ZooBank
continues to grow with, as of this writing (15 February 2011), 73,633 registered
nomenclatural acts, 29,522 registered published works, and 11,955 registered authors.
This represents an average rate of nearly 100 new name registrations within nearly 33
published works per month during the past six months.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 7
BioCode — ICZN Introduction
To date, the three major Codes of type-based organismal nomenclature have been
developed with almost an exclusive attention to the needs and history of names for
their focal set of organisms (animals, plants, prokaryotes). The newly released draft
of a BioCode, presented here, aims to provide a framework for the existing Codes to
grow towards each other in the future and promote common rules to minimise
confusion among names of any organism. It is a collaborative effort by representa-
tives of each major organismal Code. It is, in this respect, a largely forward-looking
document.
The draft BioCode has no effect on the provisions of the current zoological Code
and should comply with the other type-based (or in draft BioCode terminology,
‘special’) Codes as well. The intention is that like the existing Codes the BioCode will
form a voluntary code of practice, and that it will supplement, not replace, them.
Authors of new animal names are reminded that this draft BioCode has no current
official standing, and new nomenclatural acts must still conform to the ICZN. The
implementation of the BioCode remains to be worked out in future drafts and
through publication of the ‘Annexes’. The mechanism for adoption of the BioCode is
similarly to be determined in the future. David Hawksworth suggests, in his
introduction below, that BioCode ‘provisions can be adopted at the appropriate time
for any particular group of organism,-at any rank or range of ranks. Such adoption
is to be determined by the appropriately mandated international body if and when
the necessary structures exist and are operational.’ We look forward to comments
from the community of zoologists on how we can best implement zoological
participation in the BioCode.
Your input in improving the draft will be welcomed. We draw your attention to the
following areas of the draft BioCode:
e The principle of coordination to be extended to botanical and bacterial
nomenclature, Draft BioCode Art. 3.3, in part requiring the introduction of
additional ranks (profamily between family and subfamily, Art. 24.1 & Note 1,
progenus between genus and subgenus, Art. 26.2 & Notes, prospecies between
species and subspecies, Art. 28.3 & Notes).
Registration of new names and nomenclatural acts, Art. 5.2, 12 & 13.
Required common languages for description, English or Latin, Art. 7.
Prevention of inter-regnal homonymy for new names, Art. 18.2.
‘Adopted Lists’ or Lists of Available Names, Art. 20.
Flexibility in use of suprageneric terminations for ambiregnal organismal
names, Art. 23 Note 2,.24 Note 2, 25 Note. 1.
We will make a platform for comments, formatted such that discussion on each
Article is continuous, on the ICZN website at this address: http://iczn.org/biocode.
Ellinor Michel
Executive Secretary, ICZN
8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Introducing the Draft BioCode (2011)
David L Hawksworth
Chair, IUBSITUMS International Committee on Bionomenclature;
Departamento de Biologia Vegetal II, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad
Complutense de Madrid, Plaza Ramon y Cajal, Madrid 28040, Spain;
and Department of Botany, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 5BD,U_K. (e-mail: d.hawksworth@nhm.ac.uk)
As information on the world’s biota becomes increasingly integrated across different
groups of organisms, from bacteria and fungi to animals and plants, there is a
concomitant rising need for a consistent and harmonised approach to the regulation
of scientific names. The BioCode initiative represents a concerted effort, by biologists
intimately involved in the operation of the current system of separate codes, to devise
a unified approach to the future naming of organisms of all kinds. This need has
become pressing in view of common issues that the separate organismal type-based
codes now have to address, consequent on the rapid changes taking place in global
informatics, database architecture, molecular systematics and ecology, and electronic
publication.
The Draft BioCode (2011) is most appropriately viewed as a framework over-
arching the practices of the current series of codes, but which also addresses ways in
which some of the key issues of current concern in systematics could be handled by
all codes, for example the registration of new names and electronic publication. In
addition, it has been drawn up so that its provisions can be adopted at the
appropriate time for any particular group of organisms, at any rank or range of
ranks. Such adoption is to be determined by the appropriately mandated inter-
national body if and when the necessary structures exist and are operational.
The advantages of moving towards a more harmonised system were realised at a
Systematics Association-sponsored symposium held at the Third International
Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB IJ) in Brighton (U.K.) in
1985. IUBS then established a standing committee on biological nomenclature
after debates at the 22nd IUBS General Assembly in Budapest (Hungary) later that
year. In 1988, following discussions during the XIV International Botanical Congress
in Berlin (Germany) in 1987, and with the support of IUBS and the International
Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT), an ad hoc group including representatives
of all five representatives of the committees in charge of the five current codes met
in Kew (U.K.) to consider a common approach towards the protection of names
then in use. Following from the report of that meeting, further meetings of the
ad hoc group, and discussions and debates at the 23rd IUBS General Assembly in
Canberra (Australia) in 1988 and ICSEB IV at College Park (Maryland, U.S.A)
in 1989, led to a major conference on Improving the Stability of Names being
convened in Kew in 1991 — with the support of IUBS, IAPT and the Systematics
Association. Later in 1991, the 24th IUBS General Assembly, meeting in Amsterdam
(Netherlands), passed a resolution to encourage harmonisation between the various
codes. An exploratory meeting on harmonisation between the codes was then
convened in Egham (U.K.) in 1994; this was held under the auspices of IUBS, [UMS
(International Union of Microbiological Societies) and IAPT with support from
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 9
CAB International, the Linnean Society of London, and the Royal Society of
London. It set an agenda for future action in biological nomenclature, including the
establishment of what became the IUBS/IUMS International Committee on Bio-
nomenclature (ICB) following the 25th IUBS General Assembly in Paris (France)
later in 1994. The ICB addressed several issues of concern when it met in Egham the
following year, but also generated a first draft of a prospective International code of
bionomenclature. That document was developed and presented at ICSEB V in
Budapest in 1996, as the Draft BioCode: the prospective international rules for the
scientific naming of organisms. Having taken note of debates during that congress, the
ICB met again at Egham in 1997 and then issued a revision, the Draft BioCode
(1997).
The BioCode was, from the first, seen as something to deal with names proposed
in the future, while the existing separate codes continued to deal with those of the
past. It was envisaged as operating in parallel while agreed lists of names were
developed by, for example, phylum, order or family. Whereas some minor changes
have been effected in the existing codes towards improved harmonisation since that
time, an agreed list of names and a mechanism for compulsory registration of new
names continued to be available only in bacteriology. However, as the 21st century
commenced, the rapid evolution of databases meant that the production of lists on
a group basis became more practical, and a need for a timely and low-cost system of
cataloguing newly proposed names emerged in botany, mycology and zoology. In
addition, changing classifications as a result of molecular phylogenetic studies meant
that the problems of groups potentially being treated under different codes, or
meriting transfer from one to another, grew. Against this background, the ICB
organised a meeting to consider the issues surrounding the mandatory registration of
new scientific names in the rooms of the Linnean Society of London (U.K.) in 2007,
and a workshop on Tailoring Biological Nomenclature to User Needs at the Natural
History Museum in London in 2009. As a consequence of these discussions, the 30th
IUBS General Assembly in Cape Town (South Africa) later that year decided that it
was time to revisit the prospect of a BioCode. The ICB then convened a workshop at
the Botanischer Garten und Botanischer Museum in Berlin in October 2010 to
produce an update of the Draft BioCode (1997) to allow for subsequent developments
in the different codes, and also the possibilities afforded by new technologies. That
document, the Draft BioCode (2011), is presented here as a basis for further
consideration during BioSystematics Berlin 2011 (which incorporates ICSEB VII).
In presenting the Draft BioCode (2011), I wish to thank the past and current
members of the ICB, and also others that have participated in the various workshops,
debates and symposia on this issue over the last 25 years. Their sustained and
insightful comments are now crystallising into a vision for a pragmatic nomenclatural
system, tailored to the electronic and molecular age, and in which biologists, as a
whole, can have confidence.
10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Draft BioCode (2011): Principles and Rules Regulating the Naming of
Organisms
Prepared and edited by W. Greuter’, G. Garrity’, D.L. Hawksworth’,
R. Jahn*, P. Kirk’, S. Knapp®, J. McNeill’, E. Michel®, D.J. Patterson’,
R. Pyle’? & BJ. Tindall” on behalf of the IUBSITUMS International
Committee for Bionomenclature (ICB).
‘Herbarium Mediterraneum, clo Orto Botanico, Via Lincoln 2/A,
I-90123 Palermo, Italy; and Botanischer Garten & Botanisches Museum
Berlin-Dahlem, Free University of Berlin, Kénigin-Luise-Str. 6—8, D-14195
Berlin, Germany (e-mail: w.greuter@bgbm.org)
°6162 Biomedical & Physical Sciences Bldg., Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824-4320, U.S.A. (e-mail: garrity@msu.edu)
> Departamento de Biologia Vegetal I, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad
Complutense de Madrid, Plaza Ramon y Cajal, Madrid 28040, Spain and
Department of Botany, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: d.hawksworth@nhm.ac.uk)
“Botanischer Garten & Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Free University
of Berlin, Konigin-Luise-Str. 6-8, D-14195 Berlin, Germany
(e-mail: r.jahn@bgbm.org)
°CAB International, Bakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey TW20 9TY, U.K.
(e-mail: p.kirk@cabi.org)
°Department of Botany, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 5BD, U_K. (e-mail: s.knapp@nhm.ac.uk)
’Royal Botanic Garden, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR,
Scotland, U_K. (e-mail: j.mcneill@rbge.ac.uk)
SICZN Secretariat, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, U_K. (e-mail: iczn-em@nhm.ac.uk)
’ Biodiversity Informatics, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole,
MA 02543, U.S.A. (e-mail: dpatterson@mbl.edu)
'° Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St.,
Honolulu, HI 96817, U.S.A. (e-mail: deepreef@bishopmuseum.org)
'' Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH,
Mascheroder Weg 1b, D-38124 Braunschweig, Germany
(e-mail: bti@dsmz.de)
This work is also published in Bionomina 1 (2011) and Taxon 60 (2011) to ensure
wide dissemination among systematists as a whole.
PREAMBLE
1. Biology requires a precise, coherent and simple system for the naming of
organisms used internationally, dealing both with the nomenclatural terms and with
the scientific names that are applied to the individual taxonomic groups of organisms
(taxa, singular taxon).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 11
2. The provisions of this BioCode shall apply to names of all kinds of organisms,
whether eukaryotic or prokaryotic, fossil or non-fossil, and of fossil traces of
organism (ichnotaxa), that are established (i.e. validly published or made available)
and shall govern the choice when names compete among themselves or with earlier
names. They shall also, and without limitation of date, provide for the establishment
of co-ordinate names within rank groups, for the protection of names, as well as for
their correct form.
3. Established names of organisms that are not yet covered by Adopted Lists of
Protected Names are in all other respects (including their subsequent typification)
governed by the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (here: ‘bacteriological
Code’), the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (‘botanical Code’) or the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (‘zoological Code’) hereafter jointly
called the “Special Codes’, depending on the accepted taxonomic position of their type.
4. Separate rules for organismal nomenclature, contained in the PhyloCode, are
being established by analogy to those in the Special Codes but are based on different
principles. Any names that may be proposed under the PhyloCode have no standing
under the BioCode.
5. Separate rules for virus nomenclature, contained in The International Code of Virus
Classification and Nomenclature (virological Code) have been established in conformity
with Principles I and V of this Code and with the thrust of many of its rules. Because
names of virus species do not have the binominal form required under this Code, and
names of virus taxa in other recognised ranks have mandatory terminations according
to rank, provisions of the BioCode proscribing these terminations for non-virus taxa
ensure that the names of viruses and other organisms cannot conflict.
6. The nomenclature of cultivated plants follows the provisions of this Code, in so
far as these provisions are applicable, but the naming of distinguishable groups of
plants whose origin or selection is primarily due to intentional human actions follows
the supplementary provisions contained in the International Code of Nomenclature
for Cultivated Plants (‘cultivated plant Code’).
7. The nomenclature of infraspecific taxa (pathovars) of plant pathogenic bacteria
is regulated by a set of International Standards for Naming Pathovars of Phytopatho-
genic Bacteria (‘plant pathogen Standards’).
DIVISION I. PRINCIPLES
Principle I
The BioCode governs the formation and choice of scientific names of taxa but not the
circumscription, position, or rank of the taxa themselves. Nothing in this Code may
be construed to restrict the freedom of taxonomic action.
Principle II
Scientific nomenclature of organisms builds upon the Linnaean system of binary
names (binomina) for species.
Principle III
The application of names of taxa is determined by means of name-bearing types
(hereafter referred to as types), although this principle does not apply to certain
names at supra-familial ranks (see Art. 23.1(b)).
12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Principle IV
The nomenclature of a taxon is based upon priority (precedence by date) of
publication, although application of this principle is not mandatory at all ranks (Art.
Oy:
Principle V
Each taxon in the family group, genus group or species group with a particular
circumscription, position, and rank has only one accepted name, except as may be
specified in a Special Code.
Principle VI
Scientific names of taxa are treated as Latin, regardless of their derivation.
Principle VII
The name as applied to a taxon is not to be changed without sufficient reason, based
either on further taxonomic studies or on the necessity of giving up a name that is
contrary to the Rules of nomenclature.
Principle VIII
In the absence of a relevant rule or where the consequences of rules are doubtful,
established custom is followed (see also Div. HI.5.).
Principle IX
The rules of nomenclature are retroactive, subject to any specified limitations (see
also Pre. 2-3).
DIVISION I. RULES
CHAPTER I. TAXA AND RANKS
Article 1
1.1. Every individual organism is treated as belonging to an indefinite number of
taxa of consecutively subordinate rank.
1.2. Taxa normally consist of whole organisms in all their life stages, irrespective
of the nature of the corresponding name-bearing types. For practical reasons, in
some categories of organisms taxa are recognised and can be named that correspond
only to parts of organisms, or to definite stages of their life history, or result from
their activity. Such taxa are termed parataxa. This Code provides, in Art. 31, for
names of parataxa of specified categories.
Article 2
2.1. The primary ranks of taxa in descending sequence are: kingdom, phylum, class,
order, family, genus, and species.
Article 3
3.1. Secondary ranks of taxa, when required, include in descending sequence:
domain above kingdom, tribe between family and genus, section and series between
genus and species, and variety and form below species.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 13
3.2. Should an even greater number of ranks of taxa be desired, the terms for these
are made by adding the prefixes super-, pro-, or sub- (sub- being below pro-) to
non-prefixed terms denoting principal or secondary ranks.
Ex. 1. Superfamilies, progenera or subspecies are permitted but not subprospecies
or prosubspecies.
3.3. Throughout this BioCode, the following rank groups are recognised: ‘supra-
familial ranks’ (all ranks above the family group); ‘family-group ranks’ (the ranks of
family and profamily); ‘infrafamilial ranks’ (all ranks between family group and
genus group); “genus-group ranks’ (the ranks of genus and progenus); ‘infrageneric
ranks’ (all ranks between genus group and species group); ‘species-group ranks’ (the
ranks of species and prospecies); and “infraspecific ranks’ (any rank below the species
group).
Note J. Further ranks may be intercalated or added, but designations of taxa in
such ranks are not governed by this BioCode.
Recommendation 3A
3A.1. The establishment of new names of infraspecific taxa is strongly discouraged,
except in groups in which they are used traditionally.
CHAPTER IT. NAMES (GENERAL PROVISIONS)
SECTION 1. STATUS |
Article 4
4.1. Established names are those that comply with the requirements of Art. 7-11
(see also Art. 33.2) or that, prior to the starting date defined in those Articles, were
validly published or became available under the relevant Special Code.
4.2. In this Code, unless otherwise indicated, the word ‘name’ means an established
name, whether it be acceptable or unacceptable (see Art. 19).
4.3. Acceptable names are established names that are in accordance with the rules,
that is, are neither unacceptable under Art. 18 nor illegitimate under the relevant
Special Code.
4.4. In the family group, genus group, or species group, the accepted name of a
taxon with a particular circumscription, position, and rank is the acceptable name
which must be adopted for it under the rules (see Art. 19).
Note 1. In ranks not belonging to the family group, genus group, or species group,
any established name of a taxon adopted by a particular author is an accepted name
(see Art. 19.7).
4.5. The name of a taxon consisting of the name of a genus combined with one
epithet is a binomen, the name of a species combined with a second epithet is a
trinomen; binomina or trinomina are combinations.
Recommendation 4A
4A.1 In order to denote a clear distinction between scientific names of organisms
and designations in common language, scientific names of all ranks should appear in
the same distinctive, and preferably italic, type.
14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
SECTION 2. ESTABLISHMENT
Article 5
5.1. In order to be established, a name must be (a) new, (b) have the form required
by Art. 23-31, and (c) comply with the special provisions of Art. 7-11.
5.2. On or after the relevant future date to be determined (Div.III.4), case by case,
for the various categories of organisms, names, and nomenclatural acts, any name of
a new taxon, replacement name, or new combination, and any nomenclatural act
(Art. 16.6, 17.4, 18.8 & 19.5), must be registered in order to be established (see Art.
12).
Note 1. Registration does not in itself grant establishment. Upon request or by
oversight, names and nomenclatural acts may be registered even though they fail to
fulfil all establishment requirements. In such cases, an apposite note will be added to
the registration entry (see Art. 13.1).
Note 2. No previous formal publication is required for registration, nor does such
publication affect the date or the form and attributes of a registered name.
Recommendation 5A
5A.1. Authors who submit names or nomenclatural acts for registration that have
not previously been formally published should expedite formal publication as soon as
possible after registration, and should endeavour to provide a reference to that
prospective publication in their registration submission.
5A.2 Authors should register new names and nomenclatural acts on acceptance of
the corresponding text for formal publication.
5A.3. In the subsequent formal publication of a new taxon of which the name has
already been registered, or of new nomenclatural acts, the registration parameters
(number, date) should be mentioned, and the spelling and relevant attributes (e.g.
type, validating description) of the name should be given exactly as registered.
Article 6
6.1. The establishment of any family-group name is deemed to automatically
establish co-ordinate names at the other ranks of the family-group. The co-ordinate
names are formed from the same generic name and have the same authorship and
date.
6.2. All subfamily names established under the zoological Code are, under the
BioCode, treated as simultaneously established names of profamilies (Art. 3.2; see
also Art. 24 Note 1).
Note I. Names of subfamilies established under the botanical or bacteriological
Code maintain the former subfamily termination -oideae (Art. 25.1) and are
intermediate in rank between profamily and tribe (Art. 3.2).
6.3. The establishment of any genus-group name is deemed to automatically
establish an identical co-ordinate name at the other rank of the genus group. The
co-ordinate names have the same type, authorship and date.
6.4. All names of subgenera established under the zoological Code are, under the
BioCode, treated as simultaneously established names of progenera (Art. 3.2; see also
Art. 26 Note 1).
Note 2. Names of subgenera (subgen.) have the same form as those of other
infrageneric taxa, for instance, sections (Art. 27), and are intermediate in rank
between progenus and section (Art. 3.2).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 15
6.5. The establishment of any species-group name is deemed to automatically
establish a co-ordinate name at the other rank of the species group. The co-ordinate
names have identical final epithets, the same type, authorship and date.
6.6. All names of subspecies established under the zoological Code are, under the
BioCode, treated as simultaneously established names of prospecies (Art. 3.2; see also
Art. 28 Note 1).
Note 3. Names of subspecies (subsp.) have the same form as those of other
infraspecific taxa, for instance, varieties (Art. 29), and are intermediate in rank
between prospecies and variety (Art. 3.2).
Article 7
7.1. On or after a future date to be determined (Div. HI.4) a name of a new taxon,
in order to be established, must be accompanied by a Latin or English description of
the taxon, or by a direct and unambiguous bibliographic reference to a previously
published Latin or English description that applies to the taxon at a rank belonging
to the same rank group (Art. 3.3).
7.2. Art. 7.1 notwithstanding, a direct and unambiguous bibliographic reference to
a previously published Latin or English description of an infrafamilial, infrageneric,
or infraspecific taxon is sufficient, under the botanical Code, to establish a name of a
new taxon in the rank of family-group, genus-group, or species-group, respectively,
and vice versa (see also Art. 6).
Article 8
8.1. On or after a future date to be determined (Div. III.4) a new combination or
a replacement name for a previously established name, in order to be established,
must be accompanied by a direct and unambiguous bibliographic reference to its
basionym (name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym) or replaced name, its author
and place of original publication.
8.2. In order to be direct and unambiguous, a bibliographic reference must include
the page or plate reference (where applicable) and year (in so far as known); for
publications with a consecutive pagination, the page reference is a reference to the
page or pages on which the basionym was published or on which the protologue is
printed, but not to the pagination of the whole publication unless it is coextensive
with that of the protologue.
Note J. When the basionym or replaced name is a name established by registration,
citation of that name with its registration parameters (number, date) is a direct and
unambiguous reference.
8.3. The basionym or replaced name may be of a different rank from the new
combination or replacement name, but only within a single rank group (as defined in
Art. 3.3).
&.4. Art. 8.3 notwithstanding, names of infrafamilial, infrageneric, or infraspecific
taxa established under the botanical Code can serve as basionyms or replaced names
for new combinations or replacement names in the ranks of family-group, genus-
group, Or species-group, respectively, and vice versa (see also Art. 6).
Article 9
9.1. On or after a future date to be determined (Div. III.4) a name of a new taxon
of the rank of genus or below, in order to be established, must be accompanied by the
16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
designation of its type (see Art. 14-17). Designation of the type must include one of
the words ‘holotype’ (holotypus) or ‘type’ (typus), or the corresponding abbreviation,
and, unless the type is a published illustration, a specification of the institution or
collection in which it is conserved.
Article 10
10.1. On or after a future date to be determined (Div. III.4) a name of a new fossil
botanical species or subordinate taxon, in order to be established, must be ac-
companied by an illustration or figure showing diagnostic characters, in addition to
the description or diagnosis, or by a bibliographic reference to a previously published
illustration or figure. This requirement also applies to names of new non-fossil algal
taxa at these ranks.
Recommendation 10A
10A.1 Provision of an illustration or figure showing diagnostic characters is
recommended for all new taxa, especially for those of zoological fossils as well as
ambiregnal and any microscopic organisms. [Ambiregnal organisms are those that
are treated under more than one Special Code by different taxonomists].
Article 11
11.1. Only if the corresponding genus or species name is established can the name
of a subordinate taxon be established (but see Art. 30.2).
SECTION 3. REGISTRATION
Article 12
12.1. Registration as mandated by Art. 5.2 is effected (a) by submitting a name,
with all necessary details (Art. 7-11), or by specifying a nomenclatural act (Art. 16.6,
17.4, 18.8 or 19.5), authored by at least one named person, either in print or in an
agreed digital format, to the appropriate Registering Centre (see Annex A and Div.
IlI.8 [The Annexes and Div. III.8 will be prepared at later dates, and are not,
therefore, included in this Draft BioCode]); and (b), complying with the technical
requirements of the registering centre.
12.2. Registration will be granted to all submitted names that fulfil these conditions
as well as the requirements of Art. 7-11. The procedures are specified in Annex A.
Note 1. Co-ordinate names within a rank group need not be submitted separately.
12.3. The registering centres are empowered to register non-submitted items placed
in the public domain that meet the requirements of Art. 7-11 for establishment. They
are entitled to do so when the following conditions obtain: (a) new names and
nomenclatural acts are clearly identified as such; (b) the authors are named persons;
and (c) there is nothing to indicate that new names and nomenclatural acts are not
definitely accepted by their author, nor is there any disclaimer to the effect that they
are not to be considered as published for nomenclatural purposes.
12.4. Under Art. 5.2, the date of establishment of a new name or of a nomen-
clatural act is that of its registration, which is the moment in which the relevant
information becomes generally available by being placed on a global electronic
communication network by the competent registering centre, or published in the
relevant official medium.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 b7
Article 13
13.1. Entries of registered names and nomenclatural acts cannot be deleted (but see
Art. 13.2). However, factual omissions and errors, particularly those that result in
non-establishment, will be mentioned in notes added to the registration entry.
Subsequently added notes will be dated. Whenever possible, reference will be made
to the actual (prior or subsequent) place and date of establishment.
Ex. 1. When the earlier establishment of a supposedly new combination has been
overlooked, the entry is maintained but citation of the actual place of establishment
is added.
Ex. 2. If the purported basionym of an intended new combination is not an
established name, the entry is maintained with a note on failed establishment of the
combination.
Ex. 3. When the earlier publication of a supposedly new type designation has been
overlooked, the entry is maintained but a reference to the earlier designation is added,
and the previously designated name-bearing type, when it differs, is specified.
SECTION 4. TYPIFICATION
Article 14
14.1. The application of names of taxa of the rank of superfamily or below, and of
those names of taxa in the higher ranks that are ultimately based on generic names,
is determined by means of types (name-bearing types). The unit formed by the name
and its type is referred to as the nominal taxon.
14.2. A type is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached,
whether it be an accepted name or not.
14.3. A new name based on a previously published acceptable name, for instance,
as a new combination or as a replacement for an older name (see Art. 8), is typified
by the type of the older name.
Article 15
15.1. The nature of types of names of new taxa is as defined in the relevant Special
Code.
Article 16
16.1. When the name of a species or subordinate taxon has no acceptable
designated type, a type may be designated. Designation must comply with the rules
in the relevant Special Code.
16.2. When no single type was designated for the name of a new taxon, a lectotype
may be designated.
16.3. If a type specimen is lost or destroyed, or is unavailable for consultation for
an indefinite period of time, a neotype may be designated to serve as type so long as
the original type is unavailable or missing.
16.4. When a type specimen contains parts belonging to more than one taxon, a
part of it may be designated as type so as to fix the application of the name.
16.5. When a type cannot be critically identified for purposes of the precise
application of the name of a taxon, and it is desirable to fix that application, an
epitype may be designated. Suitability of a designated epitype may be challenged (see
Div. II.9).
18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
16.6. In order to be established, on and after the relevant starting date for
mandatory registration (Art. 5.2), type designations as provided for in Art. 16.1—5
must be registered (Art. 5.1; see also Art. 12).
Article 17
17.1. The type of a name of a supraspecific taxon of generic or lower rank is a
nominal species.
17.2. The type of a name of a suprageneric taxon the name of which is derived from
a generic name is the nominal genus from which it is derived.
17.3. When the name of a supraspecific taxon has no acceptable designated type,
a type may be designated. Designation must comply with the rules in the relevant
Special Code.
17.4. In order to be established, on and after the relevant starting date for
mandatory registration (Art. 5.2), type designations as provided for in Art. 17.3 must
be registered (Art. 5.1; see also Art. 12).
SECTION 5. HOMONYMY
Article 18
15.1. Homonyms are identically spelled names based on different types. Rank
designators are disregarded for the assessment of homonymy, so that names in
different ranks can nevertheless be homonyms.
18.2. A family-group, genus-group or species-group name established on or after
a future date to be determined (Div. III.3), unless conserved (Art. 21) or otherwise
protected, is unacceptable if it is a later homonym, that is, if it, or one of its
co-ordinate names, is spelled exactly like a name based on a different type that was
previously established for a taxon in the same rank (see also Art. 18.6).
18.3. Two different homonyms may both be acceptable if they were published
under different Special Codes prior to the date determined in Art. 18.2. However, of
different homonyms published under the same Special Code, all but the earliest one
are unacceptable unless conserved or protected.
Note J. In the ranks of the species group, a binomen or trinomen that is already
established cannot be displaced by transfer of the epithet [Here and elsewhere in this
Code, the phrase ‘final epithet’ refers to the last epithet in sequence in any particular
combination, in any rank lower than genus] of an earlier acceptable name whose final
epithet would otherwise have to be adopted under Art. 19.4. In such cases, the
resultant combination would be unacceptable as a later homonym (see also Rec. 18A).
18.4. A name of an infrageneric taxon is unacceptable, irrespective of its date, if it
has the generic name as its epithet but is based on a different type (but see Rec.
18B.1).
18.5. A name of an infraspecific taxon is unacceptable, irrespective of its date, if it
has the same final epithet as the species name but is based on a different type (but see
Rec. 18B.2).
18.6. When two or more species-group names based on different types are so
similar that they are likely to be confused (parahomonyms) they are treated as
homonyms.
Note I. This provision does not apply to genus-group names, except as provided by
Art. 18.7.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 19
18.7. When it is doubtful whether species-group or genus-group names are
parahomonyms (see Div. III.9) they may be submitted to the appropriate commit-
tee(s) (Div. III.9) to obtain a binding decision.
18.8. When two or more homonyms have the same date, precedence between them
is established in conformity with the relevant Special Code. On or after the relevant
starting date for mandatory registration (Art. 5.2), any new choice between homo-
nyms of the same date must be registered (Art. 12) in order to take effect.
Recommendation 18A
18A.1. Later homonyms which, being acceptable under the relevant Special Code,
are in current use should not be abandoned but proposed for conservation (Art. 21).
18A.2. Prior to the date determined in Art. 18.2, authors should refrain from
establishing new names that are homonyms of acceptable names established under a
different Special Code.
18A.3. In choosing between homonyms in ranks where the principle of priority is
not mandatory, authors should nevertheless follow that principle, unless the result
would be nomenclaturally disruptive and contrary to established tradition.
Recommendation 18B
18B.1. When establishing the name of a new progenus, authors should refrain from
using the epithet of a name previously established for an infrageneric taxon of the
same genus, based on a different type.
18B.2. When establishing the name of a new prospecies, authors should refrain
from using the epithet of a name previously established for an infraspecific taxon of
the same species, based on a different type.
SECTION 6. PRECEDENCE
Article 19
19.1. For purposes of priority the date of a name is either the date attributed to it
in an Adopted List of Protected Names (Art. 20) or, for unlisted names established
prior to the relevant starting date for mandatory registration (Art. 5.2), the date on
which it was validly published or became available under the relevant Special Code,
or the date on which it was established, on or after that same date, under the
BioCode. Limitations of priority that under the Special Codes affect names in certain
groups or of certain categories, even if not provided for in the BioCode, still apply.
19.2. Competing names are acceptable names with types that belong to the same
taxon. At family-group, genus-group and species-group ranks, the choice between
competing names of the same rank is governed by the principle of priority of
establishment.
Note 1. Under the principle of co-ordinate status (Art. 6), co-ordinate names in the
other rank of the same rank group are automatically established and accordingly take
the same date in both ranks of the group.
19.3. For any taxon in one of the ranks of the family or genus group, the accepted
name is the earliest acceptable one that competes at that rank, except in cases of
limitation of precedence under Art. 20-24, or where Art. 31 applies.
19.4. For any species-group taxon, the accepted name is the combination of the
final epithet of the earliest acceptable name that competes at that rank, with the
20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
accepted name of the genus or species to which it is assigned, except (a) in cases of
limitation of precedence under Art. 20-24, or (b) if the resulting combination cannot
become established under Art. 28.2, or (c) would be unacceptable as a later homonym
as defined in Art. 18, or (d) if Art. 31 rules that a different combination be used.
19.5. When, for any taxon of the family group, genus group or species group, a
choice is possible between acceptable names of equal date, or between final epithets
of acceptable names of equal date, the first such choice to be published before the
relevant starting date for mandatory registration (Art. 5.2) in conformity with the
relevant Special Code, or if there is none, the first registered choice under the Bio Code
(Art. 12) establishes the precedence of the chosen name, and of any acceptable
combination with the same type and final epithet at that rank, over the other
competing name(s).
~ 19.6. Names of organisms (animals and algae excepted) based on a non-fossil type
take precedence over names of the same rank based on a fossil (or subfossil) type (see
also Art. 31.2).
19.7. The principle of priority is not mandatory for names of taxa not belonging to
the family group, genus group or species group.
Recommendation 19A
19A.1. Authors should follow the principle of priority also when it is not
mandatory, unless the result would be nomenclaturally disruptive and contrary to
established tradition. |
Article 20
20.1. In order to stabilise the nomenclatural status of names in current use, and to
prevent their being displaced by names no longer in use, lists of names and their
attributes may, after apposite public review, be submitted to the ICB for adoption
(see Div. III.9).
Ex. 1. The Approved Lists of Bacterial Names (see Rule 24a of the bacteriological
Code) are, for all events and purposes, equivalent to the Adopted Lists provided for
in the BioCode.
Ex. 2. The Lists of Available Names in Zoology (see Art. 79 of the zoological Code)
are, for all events and purposes, equivalent to the Adopted Lists provided for in the
Bio Code.
Ex. 3. The list of Names in Current Use in the Trichocomaceae (fungi) to which
special status has been granted by the 1993 International Botanical Congress
(Regnum Veg. 128: 13-57. 1993; see the Tokyo edition of the botanical Code, p. x)
is, for all events and purposes, equivalent to an Adopted List as provided for in the
Bio Code.
20.2. Once a list has been adopted, all listed names and their co-ordinate names are
protected. A protected name is treated as if conserved against earlier homonyms and
unlisted competing names; it is treated as established in the place and on the date
cited in the list; and its type, when listed, its spelling and, if specified, its gender are
treated as if conserved.
20.3. Protection can, for individual lists, be restricted with respect to the options set
out in Art. 20.2, and particular entries on a list can be exempted from protection.
Such restrictions and exceptions are to be specified.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 21
20.4. Once a list has been adopted, entries can be added, modified or removed only
by the mechanisms of conservation or suppression of names (Art. 21—23). Specified
restrictions and exceptions can be waived or modified only upon recommendation of
the appropriate committee.
20.5. An earlier homonym of a protected name does not lose its status of an
established name, but the precedence of the two homonyms is inverted by protection.
20.6. When, for a taxon of the family or genus group, two or more protected names
compete, Art. 19.3 governs the choice of name (see also Art. 20.9).
20.7. When, for a taxon of the species group, two or more protected names and/or
two or more names with the same final epithet and type as a protected name compete,
Art. 19.4 governs the choice of name.
20.8. The date of protection does not affect the date of a protected name, which is
the date of its establishment (Art. 19.1).
20.9. A name which is neither protected nor has the same type and final epithet as
a protected name in the same rank may not be applied to a taxon that includes the
type of a protected name in that rank unless the final epithet of the latter cannot be
used in the required combination (see Art. 19.4(b-c)).
20.10. Conservation and suppression (Art. 21) override protection.
Article 21
21.]. Conservation or suppression of names, nomenclatural acts or publications
can suspend the application of the rules to names of taxa of the family group, genus
group and species group. Conservation also permits the amendment of Adopted
Protected List of names (Art. 20).
21.2. Provisions for the conservation and suppression of names, and mechanisms
for implementing them, are detailed in the Special Codes (see Div. III.9).
Article 22
22.1. A name that has been widely and persistently used for a taxon or taxa not
including its type is not to be used in a sense that conflicts with current usage unless
and until a proposal to deal with it under Art. 21 has been submitted and rejected.
CHAPTER III. RANK GROUPS AND THEIR NAMES
SECTION 1. TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF FAMILY
Article 23
23.1. Names of taxa above the rank of family are treated as nouns in the plural and
are written with a capital initial letter. They may be either (a) typified names (see Art.
14.1) that are formed by adding a termination denoting their rank to the genitive
singular stem of a generic name, or exceptionally to the whole name; or (b) typeless
(‘descriptive’) names that are formed differently, apply to taxa defined by circum-
scription, and may be used unchanged at different ranks.
23.2. For typified names, the name of a subphylum that includes the type of the
accepted name of a phylum, the name of a subclass that includes the type of
the accepted name of a class, or the name of a suborder that includes the type of the
accepted name of an order, are to be based on the same type.
23.3. The typified name of a phylum or subphylum is formed from the same generic
name as an acceptable name of an included class. The phylum name termination is
p25) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
-mycota for fungi, -phyta for other botanical taxa, and -zoa for animals. The
subphylum name termination is -mycotina for fungi, -phytina for other botanical
taxa, and -zoina for animals.
23.4. The typified name of a class or subclass is formed from the same generic name
as an acceptable name of an included order. The class name termination is -mycetes
for fungi, -phyceae for algae, and -opsida for other botanical taxa and all animals.
The subclass name termination is -mycetidae for fungi, -phycidae for algae, -idae for
other botanical taxa, and -zoidae for animals.
23.5. The typified name of an order, suborder, or superfamily is formed from the
same generic name as an acceptable name of an included family. For all groups,
the order name termination is -a/es, the suborder name termination -ineae, and the
superfamily name termination -oidea.
23.6. The name of a taxon above the rank of family may not have the termination
-virinae, -virales, or -viridae, because these terminations are reserved for the names of
viral taxa (see Pre. 4).
Note I. Names of taxa above the rank of family that do not conform to the
standards set out in Art. 23.3-23.6 are acceptable as descriptive names (Art.
23.1(b)).
23.7. When a typified suprafamilial name is published with a Latin termination not
agreeing with the provisions of this Article, the termination is changed to accord with
it, but the name retains its authorship and date.
Note 2. For suprafamilial names of ambiregnal taxa (Rec. 10A, footnote), the
alternative use of the terminations -mycota or -phyta and -zoa (for phyla), -mycotina
or -phytina and -zoina (for subphyla), -mycetes or -phyceae and -opsida (for classes),
-mycetidae or -phycidae and -zoidae (for subclasses) is authorised, irrespective of the
Special Code otherwise used by a given author.
Recommendation 23A
23A.1. The terminations provided in Art. 23.3-23.5 should not be used in typeless,
descriptive names of any rank above family.
SECTION 2. FAMILY-GROUP TAXA AND INFRAFAMILIAL TAXA
Article 24
24.1. Family-group names are treated as nouns in the plural and are written with
a capital initial letter. They are formed by adding a termination denoting rank to the
genitive singular stem of a generic name, or to the whole name if necessary to avoid
homonymy.
The family name termination is -aceae for all botanical and bacteriological taxa,
-idae for zoological taxa.
The profamily name termination is -idieae for all botanical and bacteriological
taxa, -inae for zoological taxa.
Note I. Names of subfamilies established under the zoological Code are, under the
Bio Code, treated as simultaneously established names of profamilies (Art. 6.2). For
practical purposes, subfamily and profamily are, for these names, treated as one and
the same rank. However, names of subfamilies established under the botanical or
bacteriological Code are not equivalent to names of profamilies and remain outside
the family-group ranks.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 ae
24.2. The name of a family may not have the termination -viridae, and the name of
a profamily may not have the termination -virinae, because these terminations are
reserved for the names of viral taxa (see Pre. 4).
24.3. When a name is published with a Latin termination not agreeing with the
provisions of this Article, the termination is changed to accord with it, but the name
retains its authorship and date.
Note 2. For family-group names of ambiregnal taxa (Rec. 10A, footnote), the
alternative use of the terminations -aceae and -idae (for families), -idieae and -inae
(for profamilies) is authorised. irrespective of the Special Code otherwise used by a
given author.
Article 25
25.1 The name of an infrafamilial taxon is a noun in the plural and is written with
a capital initial letter. It is formed in the same way as a name of a family-group taxon,
but by adding a different termination to denote rank:
The subfamily name termination is -oideae for all botanical and bacteriological
taxa, -inae for zoological taxa.
The tribe name termination is -eae for all botanical and bacteriological taxa, -ini
for zoological taxa.
The subtribe name termination is -inae for all botanical and bacteriological taxa,
-ina for zoological taxa.
25.2. The name of an infrafamilial taxon that includes the type of the accepted
name of the family is to be based on the same type as the family name.
25.3. The name of a subtribe may not have the termination -virinae, which is
reserved for the names of viral taxa (see Pre. 4).
25.4. When a name is published with a Latin termination not agreeing with the
provisions of this Article, the termination is changed to accord with it, but the name
retains its authorship and date.
Note J. For infrafamilial names of ambiregnal taxa (Rec. 10A, footnote), the
alternative use of the terminations -oideae and -inae (for subfamilies), -eae and -ini
(for tribes), -inae and -ina (for subtribes) is authorised, irrespective of the Special
Code otherwise used by a given author.
SECTION 3. GENUS-GROUP TAXA AND INFRAGENERIC TAXA
Article 26
26.1. The name of a genus is a noun in the singular, or a single word treated as
such, and is written with a capital initial letter. It may not have the termination -virus,
which is reserved for the names of viral genera (see Pre. 4).
26.2. The name of an progenus has the same form as a generic name and stands on
its own. However, it may not be used as the first term in a binomen or trinomen. It
may be interpolated in parentheses between the terms of a binomen, optionally
preceded by the rank designator ‘progenus’ (progen.), but is not for nomenclatural
purposes a part of that binomen.
Note 1. Names of subgenera established under the zoological Code are, under the
BioCode, treated as simultaneously established names of progenera (Art. 6.4). For
practical purposes, subgenus and progenus are, for these names, treated as one and
24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
the same rank. However, names of subgenera established under the botanical or
bacteriological Code are not equivalent to names of progenera and remain outside the
genus-group ranks.
Note 2. Under Art. 1.1 every progenus is considered to belong to a given genus, but
this affiliation is not reflected in its name. Transfer of a progenus from one genus to
another does not therefore require a nomenclatural act.
Article 27
27.1. The name of an infrageneric taxon (subgenus, section, subsection, series or
subseries) is a combination of a generic name and an epithet, the two being connected
by the term denoting the rank. The epithet is either of the same form as a generic
name, or a plural adjective. It is written with a capital initial letter. For practical
purposes the generic name may be omitted in citation.
27.2. Adjectival epithets agree in gender with the generic name. Errors in inflection
are to be corrected, but the name retains its authorship and date.
27.3. The name of an infrageneric taxon that includes the type of the accepted
name of the genus 1s to repeat the generic name unchanged as its epithet. Such names
are termed autonyms.
27.4. The epithet in the name of an infrageneric taxon may not repeat unchanged
the accepted name of the genus to which the taxon is assigned unless the two names
have the same type.
SECTION 4. SPECIES-GROUP TAXA AND INFRASPECIFIC TAXA
Article 28
28.1. The name of a species consists of a generic name followed by a single word
as specific epithet. The epithet may have the form of an adjective, a noun in the
genitive, or a word in apposition; it is written with a lower-case initial letter.
28.2. In a name of a botanical taxon, ambiregnal taxa (Rec. 10A, footnote)
excepted, the specific epithet may not exactly repeat the generic name.
28.3. A name of a prospecies consists of the name of the species followed by a final
epithet having the same form as a specific epithet.
Note 1. Names of subspecies established under the zoological Code are, under the
BioCode, treated as simultaneously established names of prospecies (Art. 6.6). For
practical purposes, subspecies and prospecies are, for these names, treated as one and
the same rank. However, names of subspecies established under the botanical or
bacteriological Code are not equivalent to names of prospecies and remain outside
the species-group ranks.
Note 2. Insertion of the rank-denoting term ‘prospecies’ (prosp.) between the
binomen and the final epithet 1s unnecessary.
28.4. In a species-group name, the final epithet, when adjectival in form and not
used as a noun, agrees grammatically with the generic name. Errors in inflection are
to be corrected, but the name retains its authorship and date.
Article 29
29.1. The name of an infraspecific taxon is a combination of the name of a species
and a final epithet, both being connected by a rank-denoting term. The epithet has
the same form as a species-group epithet. Art. 28.4 applies by analogy.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 25
29.2. The name of an infraspecific taxon that includes the type of the accepted
name of the species is to repeat the specific epithet unchanged as its epithet. Such
names are termed autonyms.
29.3. The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific taxon may not repeat
unchanged the epithet of the accepted name of the species to which the taxon is
assigned unless the two names have the same type.
CHAPTER IV. PROVISIONS FOR SPECIAL GROUPS
Article 30
30.1. Names for hybrids between different taxa of specific or lower rank, including
their progeny, are provided for in the botanical Code. Except for some special rules,
the nomenclature of these hybrids follows the same principles as that of non-hybrid
taxa.
Note 1. The zoological and bacteriological Codes do not provide for the naming of
hybrids.
30.2. Designations of hybrid taxa in supraspecific ranks that equivalent to
condensed formulae, or have condensed formulae as their epithets, and are deter-
mined by a statement of parentage under the botanical Code (Art. H7 & H9), are not
established names under the BioCode. However, Art. 11 notwithstanding, names of
species placed under such designations retain their status of established names under
the BioCode. .
Note 2. Distinguishable groups of cultivated plants and fungi, whose origin or
selection is primarily due to the intentional actions of mankind (e.g., cultivars and
cultivar-groups), are not covered by this Code, but are denominated under the
provisions of the International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants.
Article 31
31.1. Names based on any part of an organism or portion of its life history are
treated as applicable to the whole organism and compete for precedence as provided
for in Art. 19-24, unless the relevant Special Code provides otherwise.
31.2. Fossil non-algal botanical taxa are parataxa, which for nomenclatural
purposes comprise only those parts, life-history stages, or preservation states of
organisms that are represented by the corresponding name-bearing types.
Note 1. When a name, under the relevant Special Code, applies only to that part of
an organism or portion of its life history represented by its type, it is considered as
the name of a parataxon.
Note 2. The botanical Code currently provides for parataxa of certain groups of
fungi with a pleomorphic life-cycle and of plant fossils. The zoological Code provides
for taxa for the fossilised work of organisms (ichnotaxa).
CHAPTER V. ORTHOGRAPHY AND GENDER OF NAMES
Article 32
32.1. For the purpose of the BioCode, orthographical variants are defined as the
various spelling, compounding, and inflectional forms of a name or its epithet
(including typographical errors), only one type being involved. Confusingly similar
names based on the same type are also treated as orthographical variants.
26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Note I. For confusingly similar names based on different types, see Art. 18.6 and
Sst
32.2. Every established name is deemed to have a single correct orthography. Its
variants are treated as correctable errors. The correctability of orthographical
variants of names established prior to a future date to be determined (Div.III.3) is
specified in the relevant Special Codes. The corresponding provisions remain
applicable under the BioCode, complemented by those of Art. 33 (see also Art. 20.2
and 21.2).
32.3. Correctable orthographical variants of a name are to be corrected to the
established form of that name. Whenever such a variant appears in print, it is to be
treated as if it were printed in its corrected form.
Article 33
33.1. The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the
correction of typographical or orthographical errors, the standardisation of termi-
nations required by Art. 23.7, 24.3, 25.4, 27.2, 28.4, and 29.1 (see also Art. 32), and
the corrections provided for by the relevant Special Code.
Note I. For names established on or after the relevant starting date for mandatory
registration (Art. 5.2), the words ‘original spelling’ in this Article mean the spelling
employed when the name is submitted for registration. Any corrections and
standardisations required under Art. 33.1 are made during the registration process.
Article 34
34.1. A generic name is treated as a noun with either masculine or feminine or
neuter gender. Gender is established on the basis of classical Latin and Greek
grammar, when applicable, and by subsequent biological usage (see also Annex B).
In case of doubt, the gender assigned by the author of the name or, failing this, by
the first subsequent author to assign a gender to the name, is accepted (see also Art.
20.2, 21.2, and Annex B).
34.2. Compound generic names take the gender of the last word in the nominative
case in the compound. The most usual words used in compounding generic names,
together with their gender, are listed in Annex B.
34.3. The gender of generic names often depends on their termination. For
those terminations for which a particular gender is defined in the Special Codes, that
gender must be accepted. The most usual terminations used in forming generic
names, together with their gender, are listed in Annex B (see also Art. 20.2 and
Hi, [iy
34.4. When a new generic name is submitted for registration without indication of
gender, or with an indication of gender that is contrary to the Codes, the gender is
assigned or corrected during registration.
CHAPTER VI. AUTHORSHIP OF NAMES
Article 35
35.1. In publications dealing with the taxonomy and nomenclature of organisms,
it may be desirable to cite the name of the author(s) who established the name
concerned and the year of its establishment. For author citation, the rules of the
relevant special Code apply, in addition to the provisions in the present Article.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 a
35.2. When a name of a taxon is jointly authored by two persons, both author
names are cited, linked with an ampersand (&) or the word ‘et’. When a name of a
taxon has three or more authors, in subsequent citations only the first needs to be
cited, followed by the phrase ‘& al.’ (or et al.).
35.3. When a taxon of rank lower than progenus is altered in rank, or when its
epithet is transferred to another genus or species, the names of the authors of the
basionym (name- or epithet-bringing acceptable name), and optionally its year, are
placed in parentheses. After the parenthesis, the authorship and year of the alteration
or transfer may be added.
Recommendation 35A
35A.1. Inclusion of the name of persons other than the actual author or authors,
linked to the latter by the particle ‘ex’, is provided for in the Special Codes. As the
prescribed order of names differs between the Codes, so that confusion may result,
this practice is discouraged under the BioCode.
35A.2. Author citations should be used sparingly in publications dealing with the
taxonomy and nomenclature of organisms, and should be omitted in other publica-
tions unless they are necessary to avoid confusion.
DIVISION III. AUTHORITY
1. The BioCode is established under the joint authority of the International Union
of Biological Sciences (IUBS) and of the International Union of Microbiological
Societies (IUMS), to be exercised through an inter-union International Committee
on Bionomenclature (ICB). |
2. The ICB is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) consisting of up to 20
members, with a balanced representation of the main groups of organisms covered by
the Special Codes. It operates in close contact with the General Committee on
Botanical Nomenclature (GCBN), the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature (ICZN), the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology
(ICSB), the International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants
(ICNCP), and the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV).
3. The BioCode takes effect upon being approved by an International Congress of
Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB), or any Congress that may in the
future take its place, subject to ratification at the subsequent IUBS General Assembly
or appropriate IUMS Divisional Congress.
4. The dates on which individual provisions of the BioCode (Art. 5.2, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1,
10.1, 16.6, 17.4, 18.2, 18.8, 32.2) take effect, for any particular purpose or group of
organisms, are determined by the ICB, which will ensure that notice of such dates and
of any relevant procedures be disseminated world-wide at least one year in advance.
The ICB has also power to suspend the effect of any such provision, should this
become necessary, and to designate Registration Centres for defined groups of
organisms (Art. 12.1; see Div. III.8).
5. The ICB has power to resolve present and future ambiguity concerning the
provisions of the BioCode. In case of those organisms that have been or still are
treated under different Special Codes by different workers, it will consult and seek to
establish consensus among the specialists in the groups concerned. Based on these
consultations, it shall — for nomenclatural purposes only — assign each controversial
group of organisms to the jurisdiction of one of the Special Codes.
28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
6. The first and future editions of the BioCode are published under the auspices of
the International Organisation for Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (IOSEB), or
any future successor organisation.
7. The ICB has powers to edit future editions of the BioCode, and to amend its
provisions where necessary. Any proposed change of substance must, however, be
subject to public discussion before being approved by an ICSEB, or any Congress
that may in the future take its place, and ratified by the subsequent IUBS General
Assembly or appropriate IUMS Divisional Congress.
7.1. The ICB will act on the proposals in the light of these opinions, a 60 %
majority of voting members being required for the approval of a change, when a
quorum of 50 % of members will apply.
7.2. Any adopted change that is not of a retroactive nature will take effect from a
date determined by the ICB.
8. The ICB will operate in close contact with the Registering Centres (Annex A),
when they exist, and will assist in setting up those that are wanting for a complete
coverage of all groups of organisms. It will ensure that the technical requirements
defined by each registering centre are compatible with user requirements and the
letter and spirit of the BioCode.
9. The ICB will not interfere with the activities of the nomenclature committees
operating under the authority of the Special Codes, and will refrain from setting up
similar structures under its own authority unless and until such a committee should
cease to function. It will transmit to the pertinent nomenclature committee any
request for the conservation or suppression of individual names, publications or
nomenclatural acts (Art. 21), and seek its opinion and advice before adopting any list
(Art. 20) or acting on any challenge of an epitype designation (Art. 16.5).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 29
The early endeavours by Hugh Edwin Strickland to establish a code
for zoological nomenclature in 1842-1843
L.C. Rookmaaker
University Museum of Zoology, University of Cambridge
(e-mail: lcr26@cam.ac.uk)
Abstract. Hugh Edwin Strickland (1811-1853) in 1837 published a preliminary set
of 22 rules relating to established nomenclature and providing guidance in the
formulation of names. Hoping to make such rules mandatory, he opted to gain the
support of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. In September
1841, he drafted a first code to be circulated among scientists at home and abroad
to garner support and finalise the terminology. On 11 February 1842, the Council
of the British Association appointed a committee to discuss zoological nomen-
clature. This committee of 16 people met a few times in April 1842 to discuss the
text of the rules, resulting in a second draft printed in May 1842. This document
was discussed at the annual meeting of the British Association in Manchester on
28 June 1842, without a clear result on the suitability of the rules. Strickland
argued to members of Council that his report should be printed in the main
section of the annual proceedings, where in fact they appeared in 1843. This was
the first general printing of the rules of nomenclature, which later became known
as the Strickland Code.
Introduction
In 1842, at the annual conference of the British Association for the Advancement of
Science in Manchester, a report was read advocating guidelines to stabilise zoological
nomenclature. It was presented by Hugh Strickland on behalf of a small committee
and constituted the first steps towards a set of rules, which later became generally
known as the Strickland Code for Zoological Nomenclature. This paper traces the
genesis, development and outcome of Strickland’s endeavours to change the ways
in which naturalists dealt with the increasing number of species in the animal
kingdom. It is an expansion and revision of the historical information published in
Rookmaaker (2010), largely based on a study of primary documents available in the
Museum of Zoology, University of Cambridge (UMZC).
Hugh Edwin Strickland (1811-1853) had wide-ranging interests encompassing all
branches of natural history including geology, palaeontology and zoology, with
emphasis on ornithology. During his relatively short life, cut short by a freak railway
accident, Strickland studied in Oxford, toured Asia Minor, helped to start the Ray
Society, wrote a book on the extinct dodo, actively participated in the conferences of
the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) and published about
264 papers. In 1845 he married Catherine Dorcas Maule (1825-1888), the second
daughter of the famous naturalist and author, Sir William Jardine (1800-1874). They
lived at Apperley Court near Deerhurst, Gloucestershire, when Strickland started his
career as Deputy Reader in Geology at the University in Oxford in 1850. Strickland
30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
was an active collector especially of birds, both British and foreign. After his sudden
death, his life and writings were set out by Jardine (1858).
Strickland’s scientific legacy passed to the University of Cambridge in several
stages. His collection of birds (about 6006 skins of 3117 species) was donated by his
wife Catherine in 1867, his scientific library of over 400 volumes was added in 1875,
while his extensive scientific correspondence was presented in 1892. The latter
collection, known as the ‘Strickland Archive’ and preserved in UMZC, contains 3246
items traditionally divided into five sections (Rookmaaker, 2010). References made
to these documents below are given in the format ‘N-000’, with ‘N’ indicating the
section on nomenclature, which has 182 items ranging in date from 1841-1883.
First thoughts on nomenclature
Ornithology ranked high among Strickland’s interests. He amassed an impressive
collection of local and foreign birds, outstanding in quantity as well as quality. He
felt it was imperative that all birds were accurately named and that the specimens
were arranged in a logical or natural order. He studied the available literature from
around the globe to find the information needed to assist his ongoing task. Like any
zoologist studying a particular group of organisms in his time, he found that authors
liberally bestowed and altered scientific names, resulting in a bewildering duplication
of names and an expanding synonymy. When he read a short note by the unidentified
S.D.W. (1834) advocating a change of the name of the ‘bullfinch’ in favour of
‘coalhood’, supposedly more descriptive or appropriate, he quickly drafted a reply
for the Magazine of Natural History. Strickland (1835) emphatically argued against
such so-called arbitrary and unlicensed alteration of established names. He wanted
names to be unique and unalterable, rather than appropriate, and suggested that
‘priority seems to be the universal law for the adoption of specific names’ (p. 40). He
knew that his personal opinion would remain unheeded unless ‘an authorised body
could be constituted, to frame a code of laws for naturalists, instead of the present
anarchical state of things, in which everyone does that which is right in his own eyes’
(p. 37). He expanded these views during the next few years in a series of short papers
(Strickland, 1837a, b, 1838a, b), partly in response to critical remarks by William
Ogilby (1838), as recently reviewed by McOuat (1996, 2001la) and Dayrat (2010).
Strickland (1837b) provided a general set of 22 rules, first relating to established
nomenclature stating the right of the discoverer of a species to name it, secondly
providing guidance on how to formulate names properly. He then needed to find an
established scientific body to formalise these regulations and make them binding for
future scientists.
The Proposed Plan of 1841
His first choice was the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS),
during that period the most prestigious, influential and national forum for scientists
from all disciplines. He was an active participant of their annual meetings from 1837
onwards and served on Council in 1840 and 1841 (BAAS 1842, pp. vii, x). First he
needed to discover how much support or opposition he could encounter. Hence he
sought advice from William Jardine in July 1841, probably shortly before the BAAS
meeting scheduled to take place in Plymouth at the end of the month: ‘I have some
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 31
thoughts of moving in the Zoological Section at Plymouth for the appointment of a
Committee to prepare a set of regulations with the view of establishing a permanent
system of zoological nomenclature. I should be glad to have your opinion on the
subject. The plan which I propose will not interfere with zoological classification, in
which everyone must in the present state of the science be left to please himself”
(letter reproduced in Jardine, 1858, p. clxxv; the original is not in the Archive).
Jardine’s response, now lost, must have been favourable. Strickland went to the
conference in Plymouth well prepared to launch his appeal and to defend his set of
rules. It is not clear if the need to streamline nomenclature was actually discussed
during any of the scheduled plenary or sectional meetings in Plymouth. There is no
trace of any resolution or grant relating to Strickland’s project either in the official
Report published in 1842 or in the more current and comprehensive reviews in the
Athenaeum, the main contemporary news magazine for literary and scientific news.
However, Jardine (1858, p. clxxv) recalled that in Plymouth ‘its general necessity
[was] acknowledged, and after some opposition it was moved that a Committee be
appointed.’ The same course of events might be inferred from a draft in Jardine’s
hand (N-088) of a motion carried at the 1841 meeting to appoint a committee.
Obviously Jardine and Strickland lobbied among the delegates at the time of the
meeting, but from all available evidence it appears unlikely that there was in fact any
formal progress in Plymouth. Jardine could have known that his memory was faulty
when he wrote his memoir of Strickland’s life in 1858, because the draft of a motion
put his name forward to chair the committee (other members proposed were Jenyns,
Westwood, Henslow, Ball, Taylor and Strickland). In fact, Jardine never participated
in any committee on zoological nomenclature in the 1840s, probably due to his
residence being too distant from London.
Apparently undeterred by the lack of a resolution during the BAAS meeting of
1841, Strickland (with the silent encouragement of Jardine) went ahead and drafted
a set of rules to govern zoological nomenclature. Dated September 1841, this was
printed as a small pamphlet of 15 pages (by Richard and John E. Taylor, Red Lion
Court, Fleet Street, London), entitled Proposed plan for rendering the nomenclature of
zoology uniform and permanent (N-089; fig. 1). Here Strickland explained that ‘it is
proposed at a future period to submit the following scheme to the consideration of
the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Previously, however, to
doing so, it seems desirable to mature the plan as much as possible, by obtaining the
opinions of eminent zoologists in various countries ...’
According to Sclater (1878, pp. 25—27), following a list prepared by Mrs Catherine
Strickland, this first draft of the rules was circulated among 213 naturalists and
societies, both local and foreign. The Strickland Archive includes a number of lists of
those receiving drafts of the rules of nomenclature, respectively with 43 names (N-090
— for first draft, dated September 1841), 186 names (N-154, undated), 38 names
(N-155, undated) and 32 names (N-120 — for second draft, May 1842), but their
chronology and scope are unknown. Despite these efforts, only eight written replies
concerning the contents of this first draft of September 1841 are present in the
Strickland Archive, from John O. Westwood (12 October 1841, 22 February 1842),
Edward H. Bunbury (1842), William E. Shuckard (1842), John S. Henslow (1 March
1842), Charles Darwin (17 February 1842, cf. Burckhardt & Smith 1985, p. 311),
John Richardson (1 March 1842), Leonard Jenyns (16 March 1842), William J.
32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Broderip (25 April 1842) and Charles Lucien Bonaparte (20 January 1842, cf. Jardine
1858, p. clxxvi).
The Council of the BAAS
With most responses supportive and agreeable to the wording of the text, Strickland
decided to move ahead and prepare for the next annual BAAS meeting. On 22
December 1841 Strickland enquired from the General Secretaries of the BAAS
(Roderick Murchison and Edward Sabine) if the Council had the power to appoint
a committee, which could then prepare a report to be discussed at the general
meeting, thereby gaining a year in the proceedings (N-093). Sabine replied on 24
December that Council would not object as long as Strickland could provide a list of
people willing to be part of this new committee (N-095). During the next few months
therefore, Strickland circulated his Proposed Plan of September 1841 and asked a
number of scientists if they would be willing to participate. References to the
formation of the committee were found in letters from Henslow, Westwood,
Richardson, Broderip and Jenyns written in the first months of 1842.
When the Council met again in London on 11 February 1842, Strickland was
prepared and obtained permission to continue his work. Sabine reported in the
minutes of this meeting that “With a view of securing early attention to an important
subject, the Council requested the following Gentlemen, who were represented as
willing to set together for the purpose to consider if the rules by which the
nomenclature of Zoology might be established on a uniform and permanent basis,
and to report thereon to Section D, at the meeting at Manchester: — Mr. Darwin,
Prof. Henslow, Rev. N. Jenyns, Mr. Ogilby, Mr. J. Phillips, Dr. Richardson, Mr.
Strickland reporter, Mr. Westwood’ (Minutes read to the BAAS meeting in
Manchester on 22 June as reported in the Athenaeum of 25 June 1842; cf. also BAAS
1843, pp. 105-106).
This committee first met on 28 April 1842 in the rooms of the Zoological Society,
57 Pall Mall (N-112). It was decided to co-opt another five members to the
committee, to make a total of 13, adding Bell, Broderip, Smith, Waterhouse and
Yarrell. The last named acted as chairman, while Strickland remained the reporter.
In the second meeting of the committee, held a week later on 5 May 1842 at Yarrell’s
house in London, the text of the first draft was discussed and revised. Only five
committee members could be present at the time (Yarrell, Ogilby, Waterhouse,
Westwood, Strickland, see N-113), and another three members were invited to join:
Owen, Shuckard and Whewell, making a total of 16 (Table 1).
A second draft of the rules was printed in May 1842, again by Taylor in London,
entitled Proposed Report of the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature. For the use of
the members of the Committee (16 pages, N-119; fig. 2). This second printed pamphlet
was distributed to at least 32 people (N-120). Comments were received from 12
persons, 1.e. William E. Shuckard (24 June 1842), Charles Darwin (31 May 1842, cf.
Burckhardt & Smith 1985, p. 320), Leonard Jenyns (26 May 1842), William J.
Broderip (5 May 1842, 17 August 1842), Robert Ball (2 May 1842), William
Buckland (30 May 1842), Alexander Keyserling (June 1842), William Thompson
(6 June 1842), John Phillips (9 June 1842), George R. Waterhouse (12 June 1842),
Louis Agassiz (18 June 1842, cf. Jardine 1858, pp. clxxix—clxxxvi) and James Sowerby
(29 June 1842).
33
x 9C8I-P8LI “WRIT “Tole x
998I-P6L] “WRIT “TTomMoyM
x x €68I-SO8I “YeIpeqo uYyor *poomyso A
X S88 I-OI8I ‘Moqoy ow 1oey ‘asnoysajeE A
x SS8I-I8LI “preyory “1ojée y,
x x x ESSI-LI81 “UIMpy YsIy ‘puepyong
x CL8I-LOLI ‘MOIpPUY “YIIUUS
898I-ZO8I “PlemMpy Weyl ‘preyonys
x x CO8I-L8LI “UYor ‘uospleyory
pL81-0081 “Uyor ‘sdiftyg
768I-PO8I “Preyory “UsMO
EL81-8081 “Wei “AqiisO
x ¥ ¥ €68I-O08I ‘preuoeyT ‘suAuor
PL8 1-008] “WeI[IM ‘oulprer
198I-96LI “SUsAs}g UYOr ‘Mo[sUdH
x 7881-6081 “Meqoy sejieyD ‘uIMied
6S8I-68L1 “UYyor wei ‘diuoporg
O88I-Zé6LI ‘sewoYL ‘Tog
x LS8I-ZO8I “Meqoy ‘Ted
x KK RK
*
Kx KK RK
~
Kx KK KK KK RK
ad ~*~
~< »*
*<
*<
ad
a
x KKK
x KK RK
SollOJeUsIs JIOdayY SVVq SUN 90} } IU, 90}}IUUUO7) SVVqg [lounog yep posodolig
Eps ounf Zr ¢ Ae 78 87 Idv Trl qe 781 A[ne [pst
ee ES eS es SS 2 eee 2 ee oe 8 ee - 2 Se ee ee Ce
CP8I-Ip8l ‘(lepsio [eoneqeydye) oinjepousWiou [eoIZoTOOZ JO $9o}}IWILUOD OY] YIM pojeloosse suOsIog *[ Iquy.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
The Manchester BAAS meeting in 1842
The next major step was to present the findings of the Committee to the scientists
assembled at the BAAS meeting in Manchester in June 1842. The meetings of the
BAAS were usually attended by close to a thousand scientists. This required a rigid
structure of the proceedings, where reports and papers were read either to the general
assembly or to smaller groups called sections. Section D was set aside for botany and
zoology. The course of the proceedings of the conference, which lasted from 22 June
to 29 June 1842, is best followed, as was usual for those unable to attend, in the
accounts supplied by a reporter of the Athenaeum (1842). During the general
assembly on the 22nd, Sabine as secretary read the minutes of Council, which
included the appointment of the committee on zoological nomenclature earlier in the
year.
In the meeting of Section D on Tuesday 28 June, Strickland had a chance to read
the committee’s report, which ‘was followed by a discussion on the propriety of
printing it in the next volume of the 7ransactions of the Association, as it contained
so much that was only matter of opinion, and as time had not been afforded for
collecting generally the opinions of zoologists on the subject. The question was
eventually referred to the committee [of the Section], as a matter of business’
(Athenaeum, 1842, p. 690). Jardine (1858, p. cxcili) provided a more personal view of
the discussions: ‘after being read and explained, as far as time and circumstances
would allow, it encountered an opposition that was scarcely expected, couched in a
spirit of prejudice, and almost jealous animosity, which was discreditable to the
discontents, no matter what their opinions might be. But in all this, the opposition
never assumed a definite form; and it is remarkable that among all the correspon-
dence, and in all the discussions, we have scarcely a dissentient voice on the general
question, and that the objections and criticisms lay almost entirely in the impropriety
of making such radical changes as those proposed appeared to be, and in the
difficulty of getting the ‘plan’ worked out and adopted. Some modern inventors of
names felt sorely the criticism of their views and compositions, which many of the
clauses exposed; and although no reference was made individually, or possibly could
have been allowed in a report of the kind, and sanctioned by such authority, yet
oversensitive minds took many of the clauses as aimed at themselves, hence the
almost acrimony of some of the observations in the Manchester discussion. But these
very circumstances caused their fall, and prevented any distinct motion being made
for either censure or delay; and the report, after being well thrashed, was left in the
hands of the Committee.’ It appears that John Edward Gray (1800-1875) of the
British Museum was one of the more prominent people opposed to the introduction
of the rules (McOuat, 2001b).
The issue had already taken up too much time of the conference to be given a
further hearing. The four members of the committee present in Manchester had in
fact prepared a final version of their report ready for final consideration, but they
did not get a further chance to present this (N-134: Strickland to Waterhouse, 11
July 1842). On the final day, Wednesday 29 June 1842, the committee of Section D
resolved (a motion moved by Richardson and seconded by Owen), ‘that the
Committee of the Section of Zoology and Botany have too little time during the
Meeting of the Association to discuss a Report on Nomenclature, and therefore
remit to the special Committee appointed to draw up the Report, to present it on
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 35
their own responsibility’ (Strickland, 1843a, p. 106). At the same time, a grant was
provided in order ‘that Mr. H.E. Strickland, Mr. C. Darwin, Professor Henslow,
Rev. L. Jenyns, Mr. J. Phillips, Dr. Richardson, Mr. J.O. Westwood, Professor
Owen, Mr. Broderip, be a Committee for printing and circulating their Report on
Zoological Nomenclature, with the sum of 10 £ at their disposal for the purpose’
(BAAS 1843, pp. xx, XxXiii).
The first printing of the Rules
The reception of the propositions on zoological nomenclature at the Manchester
meeting was rather less enthusiastic and supportive than Strickland would have
wished. The reporter of the Athenaeum even mentioned that it was a ‘personal
opinion’, which was exactly the impression that Strickland so emphatically tried to
avoid. He could publish his views in any of the natural history journals at the time,
but the rules needed the backing of a scientific organisation to have any chance of
succeeding in stabilising nomenclature. He had persuaded the Council of the BAAS
to appoint a committee of eminent scientists, who revised and lend credence to the
text of the propositions. He was not now about to lose the momentum, knowing that
otherwise the proposals would not receive a second hearing.
After the BAAS Council had met again in early August 1842, Strickland heard
through John Phillips that it was the intention to print the ‘rules’ in the proceedings
of section D, rather than in those of the plenary meetings. All Reports of the BAAS
meetings were divided into two parts, the first with the general contents presented by
the Council, followed by the second with papers presented to the sections and
submitted under the auspices of the sectional officers. The distinction is trivial in
hindsight, but Strickland knew that it would substantially increase the status of the
‘rules’ if readers would have the impression that it had the backing of the BAAS as
an institution. As during the 1842 conference the reading of the ‘rules’ had been
referred to a session of section D, Strickland could be reasonably sure of publication,
but not necessarily in the main section. Hence, he wrote to Sabine (N-138) and
Lankester (N-141) in early August to clarify the issue. Sabine, as the executive of the
BAAS Council, explained in a letter of 17 August (N-139) that Section D failed to
pass a special resolution to recommend the printing of the ‘rules’ in the proceedings,
hence the Council’s dilemma. Lankester, in his reply of 20 August (N-142), stated
that Section D had meant to allow printing of the ‘rules’ as long as it was done under
the sole responsibility of the authors.
Strickland then wrote back to Sabine (20 August 1842, N-146) that he had never
heard of a distinct resolution by one of the sections to print a report. Besides, a grant
of £10 had been approved to ensure circulation of extra copies of the ‘rules’ after it
had been printed in the proceedings. Sabine, who knew the rules of the BAAS
obviously better than anybody else, further elucidated (23 August, N-147) that a
special resolution was necessary because the ‘rules’ were not the result of an action by
the Section, rather were presented by a committee appointed by Council. However,
if there would be a preface to state that the responsibility of the contents of the ‘rules’
rested with the authors rather than the Association, and if the matter would be
addressed by Council, he would not object to its insertion. Fortunately, Strickland
was personally known to most of the council members and his opinions were highly
regarded.
2
ip
(LI-N
‘OATYOIY PUBLILNS
‘OZWN) 2agguuuoy
ayy fO Sdaquiaul
ayy fo asn ay]
AO ‘adANJDIIUGUO N
1091801007
UO aajJIWWUOD ayj
fo j4oday pasodoig
poyjque ‘uopuo’'T
ul JoyAey, Aq
Tr8t Ae Ur poyutid
So[N1, 94} JO esp
puoses 94} Jo osed
“OPLL “GYSu) °Z “Sy
1 Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
1Ca
'(680-N
‘SATYOIY PURLLS
‘ZINA ()) Juaunuiad
pup usofiun 4801002
{0 aanjojauauou
ay) SUuLAapuad
1of unjd pasodoig
peu “wopuo’y
‘JOO1S Joo ‘Wnod
UOTT poy ‘1ojAR LA
uyor pue preyory
Aq poyulid pue [pg]
Joquiajdag polep
‘aInj}epPOUsWIOU IOJ
sa[ni Jo yelp poyutid
\sIY oy} Jo osed
-OPLL “GID “1 “Sta
in of Zoolog
Bullet
36
37
‘(QESI-N ‘OATgOIY
PUrPYLNS “OZNN)
SISpg Juaupuisad pun
wUsofiun D uo paYysygqvisa
aq Apu A8o0j007 fo
JANJDIIUBUON IY) YOIYM
Aq sajna ay) fo sapisuod
0], pajuioddn aajjimuoy
p fo j4oday poyynue
yoryduwied ve se .sopni, 94}
Jo yulider oy} Jo osed
ISIE “QUSL) *p “SI
1 Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
1Ca
(eps)
SOI ‘d ‘Z] “Joa ‘aoualog
fo Juaumaoupapy ay]
LOf UOIDIIOSSP YSI1AG
ays fo suljaayy ays
fo j4oday oy} ul poyutid
se siseq juoueULIod pue
Wa4ojlun & UO poys[qeiso
oq Ae ASO[OOZ Jo
d1nj}e[OUSWOU oY} YOIyM
Aq so[ny oy} JO Japisuos
0} pojutodde 9071107)
B JO Wodeay, sy} Jo
ased sil “(J°]) “€ “Sy
in of Zoolog
Bullet
38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Although the documents give no further insight in the decision-making process,
Strickland’s manoeuvring was obviously successful, as the ‘rules’ were printed in
the main section of the Report of the 1842 Manchester meeting, which appeared in
1843 (BAAS 1843, pp. 105-121; fig. 3). The text is prefaced by the relevant
resolutions and the work of the committee is emphasised. The authority under
which it was issued is left unnoticed, thereby obviously leaving an impression that
the contents were in fact approved by the BAAS. The report was dated ‘June 27,
1842’ (the date of final composition, not that of the reading) and signed by
Strickland, Phillips, Richardson, Owen, Jenyns, Broderip, Shuckard, Waterhouse,
Yarrell, Darwin and Westwood. The actual date of distribution of the Report of
the Manchester meeting of the BAAS is unknown, but it is likely that it was
available in March 1843 at the latest, because it was reprinted in Jardine’s Annals
of Natural History for April 1843 (Strickland 1843c) and in Taylor’s London,
Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science for August
1843 (Strickland 1843d). In these two periodicals, the ‘rules’ were credited to a
committee ‘appointed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science,’
exactly how Strickland intended it to be written.
The ‘rules’ were also reprinted (probably in 1843) as a small pamphlet entitled
Report of a Committee appointed ‘to consider of the rules by which the Nomenclature
of Zoology may be established on a uniform and permanent basis’ (Strickland, 1843b;
N-153b, fig. 4). It has 17 pages, like the version printed in the BAAS Report, but the
type-setting and breaks in pages are not identical. In the pamphlet, the following text
is printed above the title: ‘Presented by the British Association for the Advancement
of Science, to [blank]’. There exists a separate title-page, detached from the pamphlet
(N-153b), where Strickland is given as the author and the publisher is provided:
‘London: Printed by Richard and John E. Taylor, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street.
1844.’ The pamphlet was printed and circulated according to the directions issued at
the Manchester meeting using the grant of £10. Soon there were translations into
French, a reprint in an American journal, and discussions among Italian scientists
(Daryat, 2010; Minelli, 2008).
The reception of the Rules
The real battle still had to be fought. Strickland had done all he could to draft the
rules and recommendations, to select interested and eminent scientists to constitute
a committee, to receive the backing of an eminent society like the British Association
for the Advancement of Science and to get his work in print and circulated both at
home and abroad. He provided a platform for discussion and revision, he had sown
the seeds. Now it was up to working scientists to follow his lead and put the directives
into practice. Change could only come slowly. Charles Darwin, for instance,
although one of the signatories of the ‘rules’, confessed to find ‘the rules very useful;
it is quite a comfort to have something to rest on in the turbulent ocean of
nomenclature, (& am accordingly grateful to you) though I find it very difficult to
obey always’ (Darwin to Strickland, 29 January 1849; N-168). Jardine (1866, p. 267)
gave a fair summary of the acceptance of the ‘rules’ during the first twenty years in
saying that ‘zoological nomenclature has not improved. Whether it is from the rules
and recommendations not being sufficiently well known, or from an idea that no one
has any right to interfere with or make rules for others, many gentlemen appear to
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 39
cast them away, and do not recognise them at all, while others accept or reject just
what pleases themselves’.
Strickland’s ‘rules’ were restructured and reprinted in the 1860’s, again under the
auspices of the BAAS (Jardine 1866).
New rules of course take time to be disseminated and to become accepted. It is in
the interest of all taxonomists to base their work on a nomenclature which is
up-to-date and stable. Perhaps British naturalists in the nineteenth century could
have embraced Strickland’s Code with more fervour and unanimity. Many of them,
and their colleagues in other parts of the world, did take heed of the important
propositions suggested by Strickland. This paved the way to the foundation of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 1895 (Melville, 1995) and
the publication of the new editions of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
Acknowledgements
Professor Michael Akam provided much support and guidance as Director of the
University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, throughout the duration of the archival
projects. I like to thank my colleagues at the museum for assistance, especially Ray
Symonds, Ann Charlton, Russell Stebbings, Stuart Turner and Matt Lowe.
References
Athenaeum. 1843. Twelfth meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
Athenaeum, no. 765 (25 June): 567-568; no. 766 (2 July): 587-598; no. 767 (9 July):
613-621; no. 768 (16 July): 637-643; no. 769 (23 July): 660-669; no. 770 (30 July):
686-693.
BAAS (British Association for the Advancement of Science). 1842. Report of the eleventh meeting
of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Plymouth in July 1841.
Xxxv, 356, vii, 115 pp. John Murray, London.
BAAS (British Association for the Advancement of Science). 1843. Report of the twelfth meeting
of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Manchester in June 1842.
Xxxvl, 213, viii, 126 pp. John Murray, London.
Burckhardt, F. & Smith, S. 1985. The correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 2: 1837-1843.
Xxxill, 609 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dayrat, B. 2010. Celebrating 250 dynamic years of nomenclatural debates. Pp. 185-239 in
Polaszek, Andrew (Ed.), Systema Naturae 250: The Linnean ark. xvi, 276 pp. CRC Press,
Boca Raton.
Jardine, W. 1858. Memoirs of Hugh Edwin Strickland, M.A., Fellow of the Royal, Linnean,
Geological and Royal Geographical Societies, etc. Deputy Reader of Geology in Oxford.
cclxv, xvi, 441 pp. John van Voorst, London.
Jardine, W. 1866. Report of a Committee “appointed to report on the changes they make
consider desirable to make, if any, in the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature drawn up by
Mr. H.E. Strickland, at the instance of the British Association at their meeting in
Manchester in 1842. Report of the Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement
of Science, 35 (Birmingham, 1865): 25-42.
McOuat, G.R. 1996. Species, rules and meaning: the politics of language and the ends of
definitions in 19th century natural history. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,
27(4): 473-519.
McOuat, G.R. 2001a. From cutting nature at its joints to measuring it: new kinds and new
kinds of people in biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 32(4): 613-645.
McOuat, G.R. 2001b. Cataloguing power: delineating ‘competent naturalists’ and the meaning
of species in the British Museum, British Journal for the History of Science, 34(1): 1-28.
Melville, R.V. 1995. Towards stability in the names of animals: a history of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995. viii, 92 pp. ICZN, London.
40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Minelli, A. 2008. Zoological vs. botanical nomenclature: a forgotten “Biocode’ experiment
from the times of the Strickland Code. Zootaxa, 1950: 21-38.
Ogilby, W. 1838. Observations on ‘rules for nomenclature’ Magazine of Natural History, (n.s.)
2: 150-157.
Rookmaaker, L.C. 2010. Calendar of the scientific correspondence of Hugh Edwin Strickland in
the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge. 379 pp. University Museum of Zoology,
Cambridge.
S.D.W. 1834. Species of birds of which individuals in plumage anomalous to that of the
species, and permanent, have been known. Magazine of Natural History, 7: 593-594.
Sclater, P.L. 1878. Rules for zoological nomenclature drawn up by the late H.E. Strickland,
M.A., F.R.S. (assisted by many zoologists, British and Foreign), at the instance of the
British Association. 27 pp. John Murray, London.
Strickland, H.E. 1835. On the arbitratry alteration of established terms in natural history.
Magazine of Natural History, 8: 36-40.
Strickland, H.E. 1837a. On the inexpediency of altering established terms in natural history.
Magazine of Natural History, (2)1: 127-131.
Strickland, H.E. 1837b. Rules for zoological nomenclature. Magazine of Natural History, (2)1:
173-176.
Strickland, H.E. 1838a. Reply to Mr. Ogilby’s ‘Observations on rules for nomenclature’.
Magazine of Natural History, (2)2: 198-204.
Strickland, H.E. 1838b. Remarks on Mr. Ogilby’s ‘Further observations on rules for
nomenclature.’ Magazine of Natural History, (2)2: 326-331.
Strickland, H.E. 1841. Proposed plan for rendering the nomenclature of zoology uniform and
permanent. (Draft, September 1841.) 15 pp. Printed by Richard & John E. Taylor, Red
Lion Court, Fleet Street, London. [Strickland Archive, N-089].
Strickland, H.E. 1842. Proposed report of the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature. For the
use of the members of the Committee. (Second draft, May 1842.) 16 pp. Printed by Richard
& John E. Taylor, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London. [Strickland Archive, N-119].
Strickland, H.E. 1843a. Report of a Committee appointed to consider of the Rules by which
the nomenclature of zoology may be established on a uniform and permanent basis.
Report of the Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 12
(Manchester 1842): 105-120. [Reprinted in Jardine 1858, p. 375 and Minelli 2008].
Strickland, H.E. [1843b]. Report of a Committee appointed “‘to consider of the rules by which the
Nomenclature of Zoology may be established on a uniform and permanent basis’. 17 pp. No
publisher, no place. [Strickland Archive N-153a; reproduced on http://www.darwin-
online.org.uk].
Strickland, H.E. 1843c. Series of propositions for rendering the nomenclature of zoology
uniform and permanent, being the report of a Committee for the consideration of the
subject, appointed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Annals of
Natural History, 11(70): 259-275.
Strickland, H.E. 1843d. Series of propositions for rendering the nomenclature of zoology
uniform and permanent, being the report of a Committee for the consideration of the
subject, appointed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science. London,
Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, (3)23(150): 108-124.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 4]
Case 3532
Murex tubercularis Montagu, 1803 (currently Cerithiopsis
tubercularis; Mollusca, Gastropoda, CERITHIOPSIDAE): proposed
conservation of usage of the specific name by designation of a neotype
Alberto Cecalupo
Via Grancino 6y, 20090 Buccinasco, Italy
Elio Robba
Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche e Geotecnologie, Universita degli Studi
di Milano Bicocca, Piazza della Scienza 4, 20126 Milano, Italy
(e-mail: elio.robba@unimib.1it)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to
conserve the current usage of the name Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu, 1803) for
a species of cerithiopsine gastropod from the southern coast of Great Britain. The
lectotype of Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu, 1803) is not in taxonomic accord
with the current usage of this name and the confusing description ignoring the part
bearing the most obvious diagnostic characters led to considerable confusion. It is
proposed that the previous type fixations for the species Cerithiopsis tubercularis
(Montagu, 1803) be set aside and a neotype consistent with the current usage be
designated.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CERITHIOPSIDAE; Cerithiopsis; Cerithiopsis tuber-
cularis; cerithiopsine gastropod; Recent; Atlantic; Mediterranean.
1. Murex tubercularis was established by Montagu (1803, p. 270) on the basis of
Recent British specimens found at ‘the mouth of the Ann in Devonshire’ and ‘on the
coast of Sandwich’. In Montagu’s text there is no information about the number of
specimens dealt with. The brief original description ‘M. with nine or ten, slender,
taper, tuberculated volutions, separated only by a slight depression: colour chestnut-
brown: apex pointed; aperture small, oval, ending in a canal, somewhat enclosed by
the columella turning inward. Length a quarter of an inch’, and the absence of any
illustration failed to clarify the distinguishing characters of the species. Forbes &
Hanley (1851), introducing the new genus Cerithiopsis for Montagu’s species (p. 364),
were the first to delineate (p. 365) the main characters of Cerithiopsis tubercularis,
which was reported to have a uniform dark or chocolate-brown colour, three to
four smooth and semitransparent apical whorls, 3 spiral rows of beads on the spire
whorls, and 2-3 basal spirals. The interpretation of most subsequent workers has
followed the species concept outlined by Forbes & Hanley (1851). Only some
sculptural details of the protoconch, i.e. subsutural and suprasutural granular micro-
protuberances, were discovered more recently with the advent of scanning electron
microscopy.
42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
2. While there is general agreement about the teleoconch characters of C.
tubercularis, remarkable discrepancies exist concerning the sculpture of the larval shell
of the species (cf. Jeffreys, 1885; Glibert, 1973; Richter & Thorson, 1975; Grecchi,
1984; Giribet & Pefias, 1997; Giannuzzi-Savelli et al., 1999; Landau et al., 2006; Chirli,
2009; Prki¢é & Mariottini, 2009). Marshall (1978), aiming to correctly interpret
Cerithiopsis tubercularis, examined a syntype from the Montagu Collection in the City
Museum, Exeter (EXEMS) and designated it as lectotype of C. tubercularis. Marshall
(p. 83) provided a detailed description of the protoconch of the lectotype ‘Protoconch
of planktotrophic larval type, clearly demarcated from teleoconch whorls. Last
half-whorl with a sharp peripheral carina and evenly spaced brephic riblets on
shoulder. First 11 (embryonic) whorls minutely granulate throughout. Subsequent
whorls traversed over abapical two-thirds by fine, crisp, evenly spaced prosocline
riblets; each riblet with about 5 evenly spaced triangles extending in the direction of
coiling for about width of rib from apertural side. Sinusigera sinus deep, opisthocyrt-
opisthocline.’ Marshall (1978, fig. 13C) figured the entire shell of the lectotype of C.
tubercularis without any SEM image of its protoconch.
3. Montagu’s original material in EXEMS consists of one box with two specimens
glued to a small piece of paper attached to the original manuscript label; these
specimens are collectively numbered 4235. The first syntype (Fig. 1A) lacks the
protoconch. Its teleoconch of about 10 whorls conforms to the concept of Cerithi-
opsis tubercularis followed for nearly two centuries by most authors and is not in
disagreement with the short description published by Montagu; there are no upper
basal spirals and the color is reddish-brown. The second syntype retains only the last
protoconch whorl (Fig. 1C) sculptured with sparse granules and unevenly spaced,
broken prosocline riblets on the abapical three-quarters, with remnants of minute
granules occurring subsuturally. The teleoconch (Fig. 1B) of about 8 whorls is closely
similar to that of the first syntype; the color is whitish. This specimen was designated
as the lectotype of C. tubercularis by Marshall (1978) as indicated by a label of
National Museum, Wellington, N.Z., now in EXEMS (Fig. 1D). The illustration of
the lectotype published by Marshall (1978, fig. 13C) shows a shell with a complete
protoconch; thus, it must be inferred that the protoconch was broken after
Marshall’s examination of the specimen. The sculpture observed on the preserved
whorl (the last) of the protoconch scarcely agrees with the description of the larval
shell of the lectotype provided by Marshall, whereas it matches that reported by
Marshall (1978, p. 84) for his new species Cerithiopsis powelli (Fig. 1G). The
description of the larval shell of the lectotype of Cerithiopsis tubercularis published by
Marshall (1978) agrees with that of the lectotype of Cerithiopsis barleei Jeffreys, 1867
(Fig. 11) in the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History,
Washington (USNM), selected from lot USNM 62164 by Cecalupo & Robba (2010).
This suggests that the type series of C. tubercularis is probably mixed and that the
lectotype designated by Marshall could in fact be C. barleei. However, the sculpture
on the last protoconch whorl (the preserved one) of the lectotype of C. tubercularis
in EXEMS is more similar to that of New Zealand Cerithiopsis powelli as described
and figured by Marshall (1978) than to that of the Atlantic and Mediterranean C.
barleei. Because of this discrepancy, it is unclear which specimen Marshall actually
examined, and the taxonomic identity of C. tubercularis cannot be reliably identified
from the lectotype (the whitish syntype).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 43
Fig. 1. A-C. Syntypes of Murex tubercularis Montagu, 1803, Montagu collection, EXEMS 4235 (2
specimens), mouth of the Ann in Devonshire and coast of Sandwich, Recent: A. Reddish-brown syntype
(protoconch missing) conforming to the current concept of Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu, 1803); B.
Whitish syntype designated lectotype of Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu, 1803) by Marshall (1978); C.
Same, detail of last protoconch whorl. D. EXEMS labels. The upper label reads ‘National Museum,
Wellington, N.Z. Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu). White specimen designated lectotype by B.A.
Marshall’. The lower label reads “Tuberculated Horn-Shell. Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu). Britain.
H. D’Orville. 4235. (Montagu Collection)’. E, F, H. Possible syntype of Murex tubercularis Montagu,
1803, Montagu’s types, BMNH 20090384, British coast, Recent, proposed herein as neotype of Murex
tubercularis Montagu, 1803: E. Apertural view; F. Preserved apical whorls; H. detail of F showing
remnants of subsutural and suprasutural granular microprotuberances. G. Protoconch of Cerithiopsis
powelli Marshall, 1978 (reproduced from Fig. 13B of Marshall) diameter 0.4 mm. I. Protoconch of the
lectotype of Cerithiopsis barleei Jeffreys, 1867. J. Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu, 1803) of prevailing
usage, Tasucu, Turkey, 7 m depth; detail of the protoconch showing remnants of granular microprotu-
berances (illustrated for comparison).
44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
4. The lectotype does not conform to the prevailing usage of C. tubercularis
(Sowerby, 1855, 1859; Jeffreys, 1867, 1869; Bucquoy, Dautzenberg & Dollfus, 1884;
Watson, 1886; Locard, 1892; 1903; Kobelt, 1908; Lebour, 1933; Thiriot-Quiévreux,
1969; Fretter & Pilkington, 1970; Parenzan, 1970; Hubendick & Warén, 1972;
Thiriot-Quiévreux & Rodriguez Babio, 1975; Nordsiek, 1976; Fretter & Graham,
1982; van Aartsen et al., 1984; Graham, 1988; Cachia et al., 1996; Palazzi & Villari,
2001; Coppini, 2008; Cecalupo & Robba, 2010). In fact, the protoconch of C.
tubercularis, as described and/or illustrated by the cited authors, differs markedly in
having convex whorls throughout, being devoid of axial sculpture and bearing only
suprasutural and subsutural granular microprotuberances.
5. Amelia MacLellan found a possible syntype (BMNH 20090384) of Cerithiopsis
tubercularis in the Natural History Museum, London. She (pers. comm., 2009)
informed us that ‘it is considered so as the labelling on the specimen is the same as
other material thought to be Montagu’s types’. The locality of this possible syntype
is ‘British Coast’. The specimen is nicely preserved and retains the last 2 whorls of
the larval shell. The protoconch whorls are convex, showing remnants of subsutural
and suprasutural granular microprotuberances; there is no trace of either axial
sculpture or carination of the last half-whorl (Fig. 1F, H). These characters fully
agree with the SEM images and the descriptions of the protoconch of C. tubercularis
published by some recent workers (Thiriot-Quiévreux & Rodriguez Babio, 1975;
Nordsiek, 1976; Fretter & Graham, 1982). The teleoconch (Fig. 1E) conforms in
shape and sculpture to the current concept of C. tubercularis; the colour is slightly
pale reddish-brown.
6. From the above, it appears that (1) the two types of Cerithiopsis tubercularis in
EXEMS belong to two different species, (2) the identity of the lectotype is doubtful,
and (3) the lectotype is not in taxonomic accord with the prevailing usage of the
name. We conclude that the existing name-bearing type of C. tubercularis should be
set aside and a neotype designated in order to maintain stability (Article 75.6 of the
Code). The reddish-brown syntype in EXEMS is most probably C. tubercularis, but
it is not suitable for a neotype as it lacks the protoconch (Recommendation 75A of
the Code). We think it wiser to select the better preserved possible syntype (BMNH
20090384) as neotype of Cerithiopsis tubercularis.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the species
Murex tubercularis Montagu, 1803 and to designate as neotype the possible
syntype BMNH 20090384 at the Natural History Museum, London;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name tubercularis
Montagu, 1803, as published in the binomen Murex tubercularis and as defined
by the neotype designated in (1) above.
References
Bucquoy, E., Dautzenberg, P. & Dollfus, G. 1882-1886. Les Mollusques Marins du Roussillon.
Tome I. Gastropodes. Pp. 1-84 (1882); pp. 85-196 (1883); pp. 197-342 (1884); pp. 343-418
(1885); pp. 419-570 (1886) J.-B. Bailli¢re & Fils, Paris.
Cachia, C., Mifsud, C. & Sammut, P.M. 1996. The marine Mollusca of the Maltese Islands
(Part Two: Neotaenioglossa). 228 pp. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 45
Cecalupo, A. & Robba, E. 2010. The identity of Murex tubercularis Montagu, 1803 and
description of one new genus and two new species of the Cerithiopsidae (Gastropoda:
Triphoroidea). Bollettino Malacologico, 46: 45-64.
Chirli, C. 2009. Malacofauna pliocenica Toscana, vol. 7. 98 pp. Published by the author,
Tavarnelle.
Coppini, M. 2008. La famiglia Cerithiopsidae H. & A. Adams, 1853. 26 pp. (unnumbered)
Documenti del Gruppo Malacologico Livornese, online report.
Forbes, E. & Hanley, S. 1848-1853. A history of British Mollusca and their shells. Vol. 1,
pp. 1-477 (1848); vol. 2, pp. 1-480 (1849); vol. 3, pp. 1-320 (1850), pp. 321-616 (1851);
vol. 4, pp. 1-301 (1852-1853) John Van Voorst, London.
Fretter, V. & Graham, A. 1982. The Prosobranch Molluscs of Britain and Denmark. Part 7 —
‘Heterogastropoda’ (Cerithiopsacea, Triforacea, Epitoniacea, Eulimacea). The Journal of
Molluscan Studies, Supplement, 11: 363-434.
Fretter, V. & Pilkington, C. 1970. Prosobranchia veliger larvae of Taenioglossa and
Stenoglossa. Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer. Zooplankton, sheets
129-132 (pp. 1-26).
Giannuzzi-Savelli, R., Pusateri, F., Palmeri, A. & Ebreo, C. 1999. Atlante delle conchiglie del
Mediterraneo. Vol. 3 (Caenogastropoda parte 2: Ptenoglossa). 127 pp. Edizioni Evolver
s.r.l., Roma.
Giribet, X. & Pefias, Y. 1997. Malacological marine fauna from Garraf coast (NE Iberian
Peninsula). Jberus, 15: 41-93.
Glibert, M. 1973. Révision des Gastropoda du Danien et du Montien de la Belgique. I. Les
Gastropoda du Calcaire de Mons. Mémoires de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de
Belgique, 173: 1-116.
Grecchi, G. 1984. Molluschi planctonici e bentonici in sedimenti sapropelitici del Quaternario
della Dorsale Mediterranea. Bollettino Malacologico, 20: 1-34.
Hubendick, B. & Waren, A. 1972. Smasnackor fran Svenska vastkusten. 4. Slaktena Laeoco-
chlis, Triphora, Cerithiella, Aclis, Trophon m.fl. Géteborgs Naturhistoriska Museum, 1972:
45-50.
Jeffreys, J.G. 1867. British Conchology, or an account of the Mollusca which now inhabit the
British Isles and the surrounding seas, vol. IV. 486 pp. John Van Voorst, London.
Jeffreys, J.G. 1869. British Conchology, or an account of the Mollusca which now inhabit the
British Isles and the surrounding seas, vol. 5. 258 pp. John Van Voorst, London.
Jeffreys, J.G. 1885. On the Mollusca procured during the ‘Lightning’ and ‘Porcupine’
Expeditions, 1868-70. Part 9. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1885:
27-63.
Kobelt, W. 1908. Iconographie der schalentragenden europdischen Meeresconchylien. Vierter
Band. 172 pp. C.W. Kreidel’s Verlag, Wiesbaden.
Landau, B., La Perna, R. & Marquet, R. 2006. The Early Pliocene Gastropoda (Mollusca) of
Estepona, Southern Spain. Part 6: Triphoroidea, Epitonioidea, Eulimoidea. Palaeontos,
10: 1-96.
Lebour, M.V. 1933. The life-histories of Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu), C. barleei Jeffreys
and Triphora perversa (L.). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United
Kingdom. (N.S. ), 18: 491498.
Locard, A. 1892. Les coquilles marines des cétes de France. 384 pp. J.-B. Bailliére & Fils, Paris.
Locard, A. 1903. Les Cerithium et les Cerithiidae des mers d’Europe. Annales de la Societé
d Agriculture, Sciences et Industrie de Lyon, 10 (1902): 95-128.
Marshall, B.A. 1978. Cerithiopsidae (Mollusca: Gastropoda) of New Zealand, and provisional
classification of the family. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 5: 47-120.
Montagu, G. 1803. Testacea Britannica or Natural History of British Shells, Marine, Land, and
Fresh-Water. xxxvii, 606 pp. J.S. Hollis, London.
Nordsiek, F. 1976. Il Genere Cerithiopsis Forbes & Hanley, 1849 nei mari d’Europa. La
Conchiglia, 85-86: 6-7 & 18.
Palazzi, S. & Villari, A. 2001. Molluschi e brachiopodi delle grotte sottomarine del
Taorminese. La Conchiglia, Suppl., 297: 1-56.
46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Parenzan, P. 1970. Carta d’identita delle conchiglie del Mediterraneo. Vol. 1 Gasteropodi. 283
pp. Ed. Bios Taras, Taranto.
Prki¢é, J. & Mariottini, P. 2009. Description of two new Cerithiopsis from the Croatian coast,
with comments on the Cerithiopsis tubercularis complex (Gastropoda: Ceritiopsidae).
Aldrovandia, 5: 3-27.
Richter, G. & Thorson, G. 1975. Pelagische Prosobranchienlarven des Golfes von Neapel.
Ophelia, 13: 109-185.
Sowerby, G.B. 1855. Monographs of genera of shells. Vol. IT. 460 pp. G.B. Sowerby, London.
Sowerby, G.B. 1859. I/lustrated index of British shells containing figures of all the Recent species.
I-XV pp. Simpkin, Marshall & Co., London.
Thiriot-Quiévreux, C. 1969. Caractéristiques morphologiques des véligéres planctoniques de
gastéropodes de la région de Banyuls-sur-Mer. Vie et Milieu, Série B: Océanographie, 20:
333-366.
Thiriot-Quiévreux, C. & Rodriguez Babio, C. 1975. Etude des protoconques de quelques
prosobranches de la région de Roscoff. Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 16: 135-148.
Watson, R.B. 1886. On the Cerithiopsides from the Eastern Side of the North Atlantic, with
three new Species from Madeira. The Journal of the Linnean Society. Zoology, 19: 89-95.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 198.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 47
Case 3533
Neobisitum Chamberlin, 1930 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpiones): proposed
precedence over Blothrus Schiddte, 1847
Mark S. Harvey
Department of Terrestrial Zoology, Western Australian Museum,
Locked Bag 49, Welshpool DC, Western Australia 6986, Australia
(e-mail: mark.harvey@museum.wa.gov.au)
Volker Mahnert
Muséum dhistoire naturelle, Case postale 6434, CH-1211 Genéve 6,
Switzerland (e-mail volker.mahnert@wanadoo.fr)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the widely used pseudoscorpion generic name Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930
by giving it precedence over the genus-group name Blothrus Schiddte, 1847, which is
currently used as a subgenus or synonym of Neobisium. The name Neobisium is in
widespread use for a group of pseudoscorpions found in the western Palaearctic
region.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; Pseudoscorpiones; NEOBISIIDAE;
Neobisium; Blothrus; pseudoscorpions; Palaearctic.
1. The genus-group name Blothrus was proposed by Schiddte (1847, p. 80) for a
large cave-dwelling pseudoscorpion from Slovenia, B. spelaeus Schiddte, 1847, which
is the type species by monotypy. Although the original descriptions of both the genus
and species were fairly brief and undiagnostic, Schiddte (1851la, p. 23) subsequently
provided a longer description as well as five illustrations. Schiddte’s second paper
was translated into English (Schiddte, 1851b, p. 148), although the taxonomic
descriptions were only partly included and only a small subset of the illustrations,
which were redrafted, were included. Schiddte’s (1847) specimens were apparently
taken from Luegger Grotte and Adelsberger Grotte (Schiddte stated ‘Luegger- og
Adelsberger-Hulen’ in Danish), which are nowadays situated in Slovenia.
Adelsberger Grotte is the German term for an extensive cave system which is
nowadays referred to by its Slovenian name, Postojnska Jama. The cave is located on
the outskirts of Postojna village. Luegger Grotte is also known as Lueger Hohle, and
is situated near Predjama (Kempe et al., 2006), which is situated 8 km WNW of
Postojnska Jama. The total number of specimens examined by Schiddte (1847) was
not stated but we are aware of type specimens of B. spelaeus that are lodged in two
institutions. The Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark has
seven large specimens, which are probably adults, and a nymph labelled ‘Adelsberger
hulen’ stored in ethanol (N. Scharff, in litt.) (ZMUC accession number 8/45) of
which Chamberlin (1930, p. 11) apparently examined a single female. The Natural
History Museum, London, U.K. has a single specimen from Adelsberger Grotte with
48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
the registration number BMNH 1907.3.18.63 (Judson, 1997). A modern description
of this species was provided by Curvié (1988, p. 52) based on new material from
Croatia.
2. The genus Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 (p. 11) was proposed for a group of
species that were previously placed within Obisium Illiger, 1798 with the type species
Obisium muscorum Leach, 1817 (p. 78), by original designation. Chamberlin sug-
gested that the name was a ‘nom. nov.’ for Obisium but in the modern sense this is
not the case. Obisium had been used as a valid genus-group name during much of the
19th and early 20th centuries but had been found by Westwood (1836, p. 10) and
Kew (1911, p. 52) to be synonymous with Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762, since both claim
Acarus cancroides Linnaeus, 1758 as their type species. Usage of the name Obisium
effectively ceased in 1930 with the adoption of the name Neobisium.
3. Chamberlin (1930) considered Blothrus and Neobisium to be separate genera, but
Beier (1932) and most subsequent authors have treated Blothrus as a subgenus of
Neobisium (e.g. Rafalski, 1937, 1967; Beier, 1939, 1953, 1955a, 1956, 1963; Hadzi,
1940; Vachon, 1947, 1966, 1976; Verner, 1958, 1971; Vachon and Gabbutt, 1964;
Heurtault-Rossi, 1966; Heurtault, 1968, 1971, 1994; Curtié, 1972; Mahnert, 1972,
1988; Gulicka, 1977; Leclerc, 1982, 1989; Krumpal, 1983; Harvey, 1991; Duchaé,
1996; Gardini, 2000; Steup, 2006; Zaragoza, 2007), even though Blothrus antedates
Neobisium by more than 80 years.
4. The genus Neobisium is currently the largest known genus of pseudoscorpions
and contains 227 Recent species and 37 Recent subspecies (Harvey, 2009b), as well
as two species described from Eocene Baltic amber deposits (Beier, 1955b; Judson,
2003). It has been divided into six subgenera, N. (Neobisium), N. (Blothrus), N.
(Ommatoblothrus) Beier, 1956, N. (Heoblothrus) Beier, 1963, N. (Neoccitanobisium )
Callaini, 1981 and N. (Pennobisium) Curéié, 1988 (e.g. Beier, 1963; Curéié, 1988;
Judson, 1992). Curéié (1984) abandoned the use of subgenera within Neobisium,
arguing that the characters used to define the subgenera were ambiguous and
subjective, based mostly on perceived levels of troglomorphy. He has been followed
by other authors (e.g. Schawaller, 1985a, 1989; Schawaller and Dashdamirov, 1988;
Judson, 2003; Dimitrijevic, 2004, 2009). The abandonment of a subgeneric classifi-
cation, however, does not affect the present case, as Blothrus remains a senior
synonym of Neobisium whenever the type species of each genus-group name are
deemed to be congeneric.
5. Species of the genus Neobisium are widespread over the western Palaearctic
region (Harvey, 2009b) including much of continental Europe, various off-shore
islands such as the Azores and Iceland (e.g. Beier, 1961; Agnarsson, 1998) and
north-western Africa (e.g. Beier, 1930; Callaini, 1988; Leclerc, 1989; Heurtault, 1990).
They occur as far east as Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan (Redikorzev, 1949;
Schawaller, 1989) and the Russian provinces of Krasnoyarskiy Kray and Respublika
Altay (Schawaller, 1985b), and there is also an introduced population of N.
carcinoides Hermann, 1804 (p. 118) in Kenya (Mahnert, 1981).
6. Neobisium has been used as a valid generic name instead of Blothrus by many
different authors in numerous publications. We have found 135 publications with 39
senior authors that use the name Neobisium in the title of the publication. These
papers include taxonomic, ecological and morphological studies; this list is held by
the Secretariat. Of the more comprehensive reviews of European pseudoscorpions,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 49
Neobisium has been used for the faunas of Europe (Beier, 1963), Austria (Mahnert,
2004), Belgium (Henderickx, 1999), Croatia (Ozimec, 2004), Czech Republic and
Slovakia (Verner, 1960, 1971), Estonia (Talvi, 2010), mainland France (Delfosse,
2003), Hungary (Karpathegyi, 2007), Iceland (Agnarsson, 1998), Ireland (Jones,
1980; Legg & Jones, 1988), Italy (Gardini, 2000), Macedonia (Curéié et al., 2004),
Montenegro (Curéié et al., 2004), The Netherlands (Tooren, 2005), Poland (Rafalski,
1967), Serbia (Curéié et al., 2004), Spain and Portugal (Zaragoza, 2007), Sweden
(Lohmander, 1939), Turkey (Kunt et al., 2008) and the United Kingdom (Jones,
1980; Legg & Jones, 1988), and in general publications dealing with subterranean
fauna (e.g. Curéi¢, 1988; Heurtault, 1994). Neobisium is also used as a valid name on
various websites including Pseudoscorpions of the World (Harvey, 2009b), Fauna
Europaea (Harvey, 2010) and the Species 2000 Catalogue of Life Checklist (Harvey,
2009a).
7. In addition to being a widely used generic name, Neobisium is the type genus of
NEOBISIIDAE Chamberlin, 1930 and of the superfamily NEOBISIOIDEA Chamberlin, 1930.
As in the situation with Neobisium, Chamberlin (1930) proposed NEOBISIIDAE as a
replacement name for OBISIDAE Sundevall, 1833, although oBIsIIDAE is a synonym of
CHELIFERIDAE, due to the synonymy of Obisium with Chelifer.
8. Article 23.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature clearly states
that the valid name resulting from the synonymy of two or more genus-group names
is the oldest valid name among those of its components. Harvey (1985) attempted to
rectify the situation and proposed that Blothrus be given priority over Neobisium, as
specified by the Code. This suggestion was met with resounding opposition from
other pseudoscorpion specialists and Harvey later reverted to the traditional usage of
Neobisium in his world catalogues of pseudoscorpions (Harvey, 1991, 2009b). Article
23.9 has provisions for the reversal of precedence without approaching the Commis-
sion, but in this case Article 23.9.1 does not apply as the senior synonym has been
used as a valid name since 1899, either at the generic (Chamberlin, 1930, 1931;
Caporiacco, 1948; Lapschoff, 1940) or subgeneric level (e.g. Beier, 1932, 1963;
Roewer, 1937; Harvey, 1991; Heurtault, 1994; Gardini, 2000; Zaragoza, 2007). We
believe that the strict application of the Principle of Priority would cause undue
confusion, with over 200 species requiring transfer from Neobisium to Blothrus. An
alternative scenario, to suppress the name Blothrus, would require the transfer of 90
species into a new subgenus, thus causing considerable nomenclatural instability.
Therefore, as required by Article 23.9.3, we refer the matter to the Commission to
give precedence to the younger synonym.
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930
precedence over the name Blothrus Schiddte, 1847 whenever the two are
considered to be congeneric;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 (gender: neuter), type species Obisium mus-
corum Leach, 1817 (a junior subjective synonym of Chelifer carcinoides
Hermann, 1804) by original designation, with the endorsement that it is to
be given precedence over Blothrus Schiddte, 1847, whenever the two are
considered to be congeneric;
50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
(b) Blothrus Schiddte, 1847 (gender: masculine), type species Blothrus spelaeus
Schiddte, 1847 by monotypy, with the endorsement that it is not to be
given precedence over Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930, whenever the two are
considered to be congeneric;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) spelaeus Schiddte, 1847, as published in the binomen Blothrus spelaeus
(specific name of the type species of Blothrus Schiddte, 1847);
(b) carcinoides Hermann, 1804, as published in the binomen Chelifer
carcinoides, the valid specific name of the type species of Neobisium
Chamberlin, 1930 (a senior subjective synonym of Obisium muscorum
Leach, 1817).
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr Nikolaj Scharff for providing information on the syntypes of Blothrus
spelaeus lodged in the Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen,
Denmark.
References
Agnarsson, I. 1998. Islenskar langfaetlur og drekar. Fyélrit Natturufraedistofnunar, 35: 1-34.
Beier, M. 1930. Pseudoscorpione aus Marocco nebst einer Art von der Insel Senafir. Bulletin
de la Société des Sciences Naturelles du Maroc, 10: 70-77.
Beier, M. 1932. Pseudoscorpionidea I. Subord. Chthoniinea et Neobisiinea. Tierreich, 57: i-xx,
1-258.
Beier, M. 1939. Die H6hlenpseudoscorpione der Balkanhalbinsel. Studien aus dem Gebiete der
Allgemeinen Karstforschung, der Wissenschaftlichen Héhlenkunde, der Eiszeitforschung und
den Nachbargebieten, 4(10): 1-83.
Beier, M. 1953. Neobisium (Blothrus) patrizii, ein neuer Hoehlen-Pseudoscorpion aus
Mittelitalien. Bollettino della Societa Entomologica Italiana, 83: 139-140.
Beier, M. 1955a. Neobisium (Blothrus) cerrutii, ein weiterer neuer HOhlen-Pseudoscorpion aus
Lazio. Fragmenta Entomologica, 2: 25-28.
Beier, M. 1955b. Pseudoscorpione im baltischen Bernstein aus dem Geologischen Staatsinsti-
tut in Hamburg. Mitteilungen aus dem Mineralogisch-Geologischen Staatsinstitut in
Hamburg, 24: 48-54.
Beier, M. 1956. Ein neuer Blothrus (Pseudoscorp.) aus Sardinien, und ueber zwei Pseudo-
scorpione des westmediterranen Litorals. Fragmenta Entomologica, 2: 55-63.
Beier, M. 1961. Pseudoscorpione von den Azoren und Madeira. Boletim do Museu Municipal
do Funchal, 14: 67-74.
Beier, M. 1963. Ordnung Pseudoscorpionidea (Afterskorpione). In: Bestimmungsbticher zur
Bodenfauna Europas, vol. 1. vi, 313 pp. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.
Callaini, G. 1988. Gli Pseudoscorpioni del Marocco. (Notulae Chernetologicae, X XVII).
Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, 87: 31-66.
Caporiacco, L. di. 1948. Troglohyphantes zorzii nuova specie cavernicola veronese e notizie su
altri ragni cavernicoli veronesi. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 1:
237-239.
Chamberlin, J.C. 1930. A synoptic classification of the false scorpions or chela-spinners, with
a report on a cosmopolitan collection of the same. Part Hl. The Diplosphyronida
(Arachnida-Chelonethida). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (10)5: 1-48,
585-620.
Chamberlin, J.C. 1931. The arachnid order Chelonethida. Stanford University Publications,
_ Biological Sciences, 7(1): 1-284.
Curéi¢, B.P.M. 1972. Neobisium (Blothrus) stankovici, nouvelle espéce de pseudoscorpions
cavernicoles de la Serbie orientale. Fragmenta Balcanica, 9: 85—96.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 51
Curéié, B.P.M. 1984. The genus Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 (Neobisiidae, Pseudoscorpiones,
Arachnida): on new species from the USSR and the taxonomy of its subgenera. Glasnik
Muzeja Srpske Zemlje, Beograd (B), 39: 124-153.
Curtié, B.P.M. 1988. Cave-dwelling pseudoscorpions of the Dinaric karst. 192 pp. Slovenska
Akademija Znanosti in Umetnosti, Ljubljana.
Curéié, B.P.M., Dimitrijevicé, R.N. & Legakis, A. 2004. The pseudoscorpions of Serbia,
Montenegro, and the Republic of Macedonia. 400 pp. Institute of Zoology, Faculty of
Biology, University of Belgrade, Belgrade & Athens.
Delfosse, E. 2003. Catalogue préliminaire des Pseudoscorpions de France métropolitaine
(Arachnida Pseudoscorpiones). Bulletin de Phyllie, 17: 24-48.
Dimitrijevi¢é, R.N. 2004. Postembryonic development and polymorphism in some pseudo-
scorpions from the families Chthoniidae and Neobisiidae (Pseudoscorpiones, Arachnida).
Monographs, Institute of Zoology, Faculty of Biology, University of Belgrade, 10: 1-146.
Dimitrijevi¢é, R.N. 2009. Neobisium bozidarcurcici (Neobisiidae, Pseudoscorpiones), a new
endemic cave pseudoscorpion from Montenegro. Archives of Biological Sciences,
Belgrade, 61: 323-328.
Duchaé, V. 1996. Uber Neobisium (Blothrus) slovacum (Pseudoscorpiones: Neobisiidae) aus
der Brzotin — Hohle in der Slowakischen Republik. Klapalekiana, 32: 153-157.
Gardini, G. 2000. Catalogo degli Pseudoscorpioni d’Italia (Arachnida). Fragmenta Entomo-
logica, 32, Supplemento: 1-181.
Geoffroy, E.L. 1762. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris; dans
laquelle ces animaux sont rangés suivant un ordre méthodique, vol. 2. Durand, Paris.
Gulitka, J. 1977. Neobisium (Blothrus) slovacum sp. n., eine neue Art des blinden
Hohlenafterskorpions aus der Slowakei (Pseudoscorpionida). Annotationes Zoologicae et
Botanicae, 117: 1-9. ;
Hadzi, J. 1940. Eine neue Art von Hohlen-Pseudoskorpioniden aus Siidserbien. Neobisium
(Blothrus) ohridanum sp. n. Glasnik Skopskog Naucnog Drustva, 22: 129-135.
Harvey, M.S. 1985. The priority of Blothrus Schiddte, 1847, over Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930
(Neobistidae: Pseudoscorpionida). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society, 6:
367-368.
Harvey, M.S. 1991. Catalogue of the Pseudoscorpionida. vi, 726 pp. Manchester University
Press, Manchester.
Harvey, M.S. 2009a. Order Pseudoscorpiones in Bisby, F.A., Roskov, Y.R., Orrell, T.M. et al.
(Eds.), Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life: 2009 Annual Checklist, Reading, U.K.
(Accessed on 13 August 2010).
Harvey, M.S. 2009b. Pseudoscorpions of the World, version 1.2. Western Australian Museum,
Perth. http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/arachnids/pseudoscorpions/. Accessed on 13
August 2010.
Harvey, M.S. 2010. Fauna Europaea: order Pseudoscorpiones. Fauna Europaea version 2.2.
http://www.faunaeur.org. Accessed on 13 August 2010.
Hermann, J.F. 1804. Mémoire aptérologique. 144 pp. F.G. Levrault, Strasbourg.
Henderickx, H. 1999. Naamlijst van de Belgische pseudoschorpioenen (Arachnida Pseudo-
scorpionida). Bulletin de la Societe Royale Belge d’Entomologie, 135: 66-71.
Heurtault-Rossi, J. 1966. Description d’une nouvelle espéce: Neobisium (N.) caporiaccoi
(Arachnides, Pseudoscorpions, Neobisiidae) de la Province de Belluno, en Italie. Bulletin
du Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (2)38: 606-628.
Heurtault, J. 1968. Une nouvelle espéce de pseudoscorpion du Gard: Neobisium (N.) vachoni
(Neobisiidae). Bulletin du Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (2)40: 315-319.
Heurtault, J. 1971. Une nouvelle espéce cavernicole de Suisse Neobisium (N.) helveticum
(Arachnide, Pseudoscorpion, Neobisiidae). Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 78: 903-907.
Heurtault, J. 1990. Les Pseudoscorpions d’Algérie de la collection Biospeologica. Mémoires de
Biospéologie, 17: 197-202.
Heurtault, J. 1994. Pseudoscorpions. In Juberthie, C. & Decu, V. (Eds.), Encyclopaedia
biospeologica, vol. 1. Pp. 185-196. Société de Biospeologie, Moulis & Bucarest.
Illiger, J.K.W. 1798. Verzeichniss der Kafer Preussens. J.J. Bauer, Halle.
Sy Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Jones, P.E. 1980. Provisional atlas of the Arachnida of the British Isles. Part 1. Pseudoscorpi-
ones. 27 pp. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Monks Wood.
Judson, M.L.I. 1992. Roncocreagris murphyorum n. sp. and Occitanobisium nanum (Beier) n.
comb. (Neobisiidae) from Iberia, with notes on the sternal glands of pseudoscorpions
(Chelonethi). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society, 9: 26-30.
Judson, M.L.I. 1997. Catalogue of the pseudoscorpion types (Arachnida: Chelonethi) in the
Natural History Museum, London. Occasional Papers on Systematic Entomology, 11: 1—S4.
Judson, M.L.I. 2003. Baltic amber pseudoscorpions (Arachnida, Chelonethi): a new species of
Neobisium (Neobisiidae) and the status of Obisium rathkii Koch & Berendt. Geodiversitas,
25: 445-450.
Karpathegyi, P. 2007. Check list of the Hungarian Pseudoscorpiones. Folia Historico Naturalia
Musei Matraensis, 31: 91-97.
Kempe, St., Hubrich, H.-P. & Suckstorff, K. 2006. The history of Postojnska Jama: The 1748
Joseph Nagel inscription in Jama near Predjama and Postojnska Jama. Acta Carsologica,
35: 155-162.
Kew, H.W. 1911. A synopsis of the false scorpions of Britain and Ireland. Proceedings of the
Royal Irish Academy (B), 29: 38-64.
Krumpal, M. 1983. Neobisium (N.) vilcekii sp. n., ein neuer Pseudoscorpion aus der
USSR (Neobisiidae, Pseudoscorpiones). Uber Pseudoscorpioniden-Fauna der UdSSR IV.
Biologia, 38: 607-612.
Kunt, K.B., Bayram, A., YaSmur, E.A. & Danisman, T. 2008. Checklist of the pseudoscorpions
of Turkey (Pseudoscorpionida; Arachnida). Turkish Journal of Arachnology, 1: 70-84.
Lapschoff, II. 1940. Biospelogica Sovietica. V. [Die Hohlen-Pseudoscorpiones Transkau-
kasiens]. Byulleten’ Moskovskogo Obshchestva Ispytatelei Prirody, Biologii, n.s., 49: 61-74.
Leach, W.E. 1817. The zoological miscellany; being descriptions of new or interesting animals,
vol. 3. Nodder, London.
Leclerc, P. 1982. Une nouvelle espéce de Pseudoscorpion cavernicole de la Dréme: Neobisium
(Blothrus) auberti (Pseudoscorpions, Arachnides). Revue Arachnologique, 4: 39-45.
Leclerc, P. 1989. Neobisium (N.) atlasense nouvelle espéce de Neobisiidae cavernicole du
Maroc (Pseudoscorpions, Arachnides). Revue Arachnologique, 8: 45-51.
Legg, G. & Jones, R.E. 1988. Synopses of the British fauna (new series). 40. Pseudoscorpions
(Arthropoda; Arachnida). 159 pp. Brill/Backhuys, Leiden.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Lohmander, H. 1939. Zur Kenntnis der Pseudoskorpionfauna Schwedens. Entomologisk
Tidskrift, 60: 279-323.
Mahnert, V. 1972. Neobisium (Blothrus) kwartirnikovi nov. spec. (Pseudoscorpionidea) aus
Bulgarien. Archives des Sciences, Genéve, 24: 383-389.
Mahnert, V. 1981. Die Pseudoskorpione (Arachnida) Kenyas. I. Neobisiidae und Ideoronci-
dae. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 88: 535-559.
Mahnert, V. 1988. Neobisium carcinoides (Hermann, 1804) (Pseudoscorpionida, Neobisiidae) —
une espece polymorphe? Comptes Rendus X°”"’ Colloque Europeen Arachnologie. Bulletin
de la Société de Sciences de Bretagne, 59: 161-174.
Mahnert, V. 2004. Die Pseudoskorpione Osterreichs (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpiones). Denisia,
12: 459-471.
Ozimec, R. 2004. List of Croatian pseudoscorpion fauna (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpiones).
Natura Croatica, 13: 381-394.
Rafalski, J. 1937. Neobisium (Neobisium) polonicum nov. spec. Nowy gatunek zaleszczotka
(Pseudoscorpionidea). Prace Komisji Matematyczano-Pryzyrodniczej, Poznanskie
Towarzystwo Przyjaciol Nauk B, 8: 159-172.
Rafalski, J. 1967. Zaleszczotki. Pseudoscorpionidea. In Katalog Fauny Polski, vol. 32 (1).
Pp. 1-34. Polska Akademia Nauk, Warszawa.
Redikorzey, V. 1949. [Pseudoscorpionidea of Central Asia]. Travaux de I’Institute de
Zoologique de I’ Académie Sciences de !U.R.S.S., 8: 638-668.
Roewer, C.F. 1937. Chelonethi oder Pseudoskorpione in Bronns, H.G. (Ed.), Bronn’s Klassen
und Ordnungen des Tierreichs, vol. 51V)(6)(1). Pp. 161-320. Akademische Verlagsgesells-
chaft M.B.H., Leipzig.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 53
Schawaller, W. 1985a. Liste griechischer Neobisiidae mit neuen Hohlenfunden in Epirus, auf
Samos und Kreta (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpiones). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde
(A), 386: 1-8.
Schawaller, W. 1985b. Pseudoskorpione aus der Sowjetunion (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpiones).
Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde (A), 385: 1-12.
Schawaller, W. 1989. Pseudoskorpione aus der Sowjetunion, Teil 3 (Arachnida: Pseudo-
scorpiones). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde (A), 440: 1-30.
Schawaller, W. & Dashdamirov, S. 1988. Pseudoskorpione aus dem Kaukasus, Teil 2
(Arachnida). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde (A), 415: 1-51.
Schiddte, J.C. 1847. Underségelser over den underjordiske Fauna i Hulerne1 Krain og Istrien.
Oversigt over det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Forhandlingar, 6: 75-81.
Schiéddte, J.C. 185la. Bidrag til den underjordiske Fauna. Kongeligt Dansk Videnskabernes
Selskabs Skrifter, Kjabenhavn, (5)2: 1-39.
Schiédte, J.C. 1851b. Specimen faunae subterraneae; being a contribution towards the subterranean
fauna. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, New Series, 1: 134-157.
Steup, B. 2006. Zur Morphologie von WNeobisium carcinoides (Hermann, 1804) aus
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Arachnida: Cuelpngtay Archiv der Freunde der Naturges-
chichte in Mecklenburg, 45: 93-111.
Sundevall, C.J. 1833. Conspectus arachnidum. 39 pp. C.F. Berling, Londini Gothorum.
Talvi, T. 2010. Puhtu ebaskorpionilised (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpiones). Estonia Maritima, 8:
127-132.
Tooren, D. van den. 2005. Naamlijst en determinatiesleutel tot de Pseudoschorpioenen van Neder-
land (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpiones). Nederlandse Faunistische Mededelingen, 23: 91-102.
Vachon, M. 1947. A propos de quelques Pseudoscorpions (Arachnides) des cavernes de France,
avec description d’une espéce nouvelle: Neobisium (Blothrus) tuzeti. Bulletin du Muséum
National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (2)19: 318-321.
Vachon, M. 1966. Quelques remarques sur le genre Neobisium J.C. Chamberlin (Arachnides,
Pseudoscorpions, Neobisiidae) 4 propos d’une espéce nouvelle Neobisium (N.) gineti,
habitant les cavernes de l’est de la France. Bulletin du Muséum National d Histoire
Naturelle, Paris, (2)37: 645-658.
Vachon, M. 1976. Quelques remarques sur les Pseudoscorpions (Arachnides) cavernicoles de la
Suisse a propos de la description de deux espéces nouvelles: Neobisium (N.) aelleni et
Neobisium (N.) strausaki. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 83: 243-253.
Vachon, M. & Gabbutt, P.D. 1964. Sur l’utilisation des soies flagellaires chélicériennes dans la
distinction des genres Neobisium J.C. Chamberlin et Roncus L. Koch (Arachnides,
Pseudoscorpions, Neobisiidae). Importance d’une connaissance précise de la genése d’un
caractére pour en déceler la valeur taxonomique. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de
France, 89: 174-188.
Verner, P.H. 1958. Neobisium (Neobisium) crassifemoratum (Beier), ein neuer Pseudoskorpion
fiir die Fauna der Tschechoslowakei. Acta Faunistica Entomologica Musei Nationalis
Pragae, 3: 109-110.
Verner, P.H. 1960. Piispévek k poznani stirkii Ceskoslovenska. Vestnik Ceskoslovenské
Zoologické Spolecnosti v Praze, 24: 167-169.
Verner, P.H. 1971. Stirci — Pseudoscorpionidea, Pp.19—-31 in Daniel, M. & Cerny, V. (Eds.),
Klié Zvireny CSSR, vol. 4. Ceskoslovenka Akademie Véd, Praha.
Westwood, J.O. 1836. Cheliferidae in Partington, C.F. (Ed.), British cyclopaedia of natural
history, vol. 2. P. 10. Orr & Smith, London.
Zaragoza, J.A. 2007. Catalogo de los Pseudoescorpiones de la Peninsula Ibérica e Islas
Baleares (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpiones). Revista Ibérica de Aracnologia, 13: 3-91.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 198.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Case 3537
ATHETINI Casey, 1910 and GEOSTIBINA Seevers, 1978 (Insecta,
Coleoptera, STAPHYLINIDAE, ALEOCHARINAE): proposed conservation
Vladimir I. Gusarov
National Center for Insect Biodiversity and National Center for
Biosystematics, Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, PO Box 1172
Blindern, NO-031&8 Oslo, Norway (e-mail: vladimir.gusarov@nhm.uio.no)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the family-group names ATHETINI Casey, 1910 and GEOSTIBINA Seevers, 1978
for a group of rove beetles. The names are threatened by a little used senior synonym
CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908. The name ATHETINI Casey, 1910 has become widely
accepted and is in prevailing usage. The names CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 (Insecta,
Coleoptera) and CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845 (Insecta, Diptera) are homonyms
resulting from similarity of the names of their type genera, Callicerus Gravenhorst,
1802 and Callicera Panzer, 1809, respectively. This homonymy should be removed as
required by Article 55.3.1 of the Code. It is proposed that the name CALLICERINI
Jakobson, 1908 be suppressed.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; sTAPHYLINIDAE; ALEOCHARINAE;
CALLICERINI; CALLICERINA; ATHETINI; ATHETINA; GEOSTIBINA; Callicerus; Atheta; Geo-
stiba;, Callicerus obscurus; Atheta graminicola; Geostiba circellaris; Diptera; SYRPHIDAE;
Callicera; Callicera aenea; rove beetles; Palaeacrtic.
1. Panzer (1809, p. 17) established the genus Callicera for a species of fly. The type
species is Bibio aenea Fabricius, 1777 (p. 305), by monotypy.
2. Rondani (1845, p. 451) established the family-group name CALLICERINI (spelled
as Calicerellae) at the rank of ‘linea’ for a group of syrphids, without listing any
genera. Considering the stem of the name Calicerellae and Rondani’s subsequent
publications (e.g. 1856, p. 55) it is clear that he based his family-group name on the
genus Callicera Panzer, 1809.
3. The name CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845 is currently in use as a valid name for a
tribe of syrphids (e.g. Sabrosky, 1999, p. 72; Rotheray & Gilbert, 1999, p. 4; Cheng
et al., 2000, p. 147; Stahls et al., 2003, p. 436; Bartsch, 2009, p. 42).
4. Gravenhorst (1802, p. 65) established the genus Callicerus for a species of
staphylinid beetle. The type species is Callicerus obscurus Gravenhorst, 1802 (p. 66),
by monotypy.
5. In a key to subfamilies and tribes of rove beetles, Jakobson (1908, p. 448)
established the tribe CALLICERINI (spelled as Callicerina) without listing any genera
included in that tribe. The 1908 publication is part 6 of a work published in eleven
parts. In the next part of that work (part 7) Jakobson (1909, p. 537) used the name
CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 (spelled as Callicerina) as the valid name for the tribe
MYRMEDONIINI Thomson, 1867 (p. 209), without explaining why he considered the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 55
senior name to be invalid. The name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 was overlooked by
subsequent staphylinid researchers and was not used again until 1967.
6. Thomson (1858, p. 36) established the genus Atheta for a group of staphylinid
beetles. The type species is Aleochara graminicola Gravenhorst, 1806 (p. 176), by
monotypy, as fixed by a ruling in Opinion 600 (BZN 18: 241-243, August 1961). The
name Atheta Thomson, 1858 was placed on the Official List of Generic names in
Zoology by a ruling in Opinion 600 (BZN 18: 241-243, August 1961).
7. Casey (1910, p. 2) established the tribe ATHETINI (spelled as Athetae) for the
genus Atheta Thomson, 1858 and related genera of aleocharine staphylinids.
8. Thomson (1858, p. 33) established the rove beetle genus Geostiba. The type
species by monotypy is Aleochara circellaris Gravenhorst, 1806 (p. 155), fixed by a
ruling in Opinion 2098 (BZN 62: 43-44, March 2005). The name Geostiba Thomson,
1858 was placed on the Official List of Generic names in Zoology by a ruling in
Opinion 2098 (BZN 62: 43-44, March 2005).
8. Seevers (1978, p. 126) established the subtribe GEosTIBINA for Geostiba Thomson,
1858 and six additional genera of aleocharine staphylinids.
9. The name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 is a junior homonym of the name
CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845, as a result of similarity between the names of their type
genera, Callicerus Gravenhorst, 1802 and Callicera Panzer, 1809, respectively. The
senior name is a valid name currently in use, and therefore Article 55.3.1.1 does not
apply. According to Article 55.3.1 the case must be referred to the Commission for
a ruling to remove the homonymy. Considering that the name CALLICERINI Rondani,
1845 is the senior homonym and valid name currently in use, an emendation of
spelling of the name CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845 would not promote the stability of
nomenclature and should be avoided. Whatever course of action is taken, it should
focus on the name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908. In order to propose a solution
promoting the stability of the rove beetle nomenclature, the recent use of the
family-group names ATHETINI, CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 and GEOSTIBINA must be
examined, because the names ATHETINI and CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 are usually
treated as synonyms at the rank of tribe (but not subtribe), while CALLICERINA
Jakobson, 1908 and GEosTIBINA have been treated as synonyms at the rank of subtribe
(see 14 and 15).
10. Horion (1967, pp. iii, 220) used the tribe name CALLICERINI (cited ‘sensu Lohse
1. 1. 1966’) without referring to Jakobson’s earlier use of that name (Jakobson, 1908,
1909), but without explicitly introducing the name as new either. Horion was aware
of Jakobson’s works (1908, 1909) and listed them in references. As interpreted by
Newton & Thayer (1992, p. 47) Horion introduced a new name CALLICERINI Horion,
1967. An alternative interpretation could be that Horion used the name CALLICERINI
Jakobson, 1908. According to the list of references in Horion’s work, ‘Lohse i. 1.
1966’ is the manuscript of the work which was scheduled to be published in 1969, and
was in fact published in 1974 (Lohse, 1974; Benick & Lohse, 1974).
11. Lohse (1969, pp. 173, 174, 175) used the name CALLICERINI for a tribe
accommodating most of the Central European genera formerly placed in MYRMEDO-
NIINI Thomson, 1867. He argued that CALLICERINI and not ATHETINI should be used as
the valid name for the tribe, because Callicerus is the oldest genus name in that tribe.
This line of argument is not justified by the Code. Lohse (1969) did not refer to
Jakobson’s (1908, 1909) or Horion’s (1967) earlier use of the name CALLICERINI, nor
56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
did he explicitly introduce the name CALLICERINI as new. As interpreted by Newton &
Thayer (1992, p. 47) Lohse introduced a new name CALLICERINI Lohse, 1969. An
alternative interpretation could be that Lohse used the name CALLICERINI Jakobson,
1908 or CALLICERINI Horion, 1967.
12. In a part of the work referred to by Horion (1967) as ‘Lohse 1966 i. 1.’, Benick
& Lohse (1974, p. 72) used the tribe name CALLICERINI as valid and ATHETINI (spelled
as Athetae) as its invalid synonym, without providing any explanation for this
decision. The work by Benick & Lohse (1974) is widely used, as it contains the
most complete and up-to-date keys to Central European genera and species of
the tribe. Immediately after the publication of that work, the tribe name
CALLICERINI began to be frequently used as valid. This practice continued until
1990-1991, when most taxonomists switched to using ATHETINI as the valid name for
the tribe (see 14).
13. Newton & Thayer (1992) drew attention to homonymy of the names
CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 (Coleoptera) and CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845 (Diptera),
pointing out that the case must be referred to the Commission and suggesting that the
Commission could either suppress the junior name or change the stem of one
homonym. Newton & Thayer (1992) further demonstrated that suppression or
non-suppression of the name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 might affect the validity of
the much more widely used family-group name ATHETINI Casey, 1910, and argued
that for rove beetles the relative merit of the two alternative solutions to the problem
posed by the homonymy depends on the taxonomic situation within the group. They
left it to the specialists in aleocharine rove beetles to submit an appropriate
application to the Commission.
14. At the rank of tribe the names CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 and ATHETINI have
always been treated as synonyms, whether explicitly (e.g. by listing both names as
synonyms) or implicitly (e.g. by listing the type genus of one of the two tribes as a
member of the other). After the use of the rove beetle name CALLICERINI had been
resumed by Horion (1967), Lohse (1969) and Benick & Lohse (1974), it was used as
a valid tribe name in at least 37 papers by at least 10 authors during the period
between 1975 and 2010 (e.g. Kistner, 1976, p. 83; Yosii & Sawada, 1976, p. 12;
Muona, 1979, p. 23; Pace, 1982, p. 75; 1991, p..136;' Kofler & Benick; (1983, p: 146;
Haghebaert, 1990, p. 91; Stourac & Krasensky, 2002, p. 263; a full list has been
submitted to the Commission Secretariat). In three additional papers (Lohse, 1989,
p. 199; Lohse et al., 1990, p. 123; Elven et al., 2010, p. 87) it was used as a valid
subtribe but not tribe name. During the same period of time, the name ATHETINI was
used as valid tribe name in at least 93 papers by at least 22 authors (in fact, many
more) (e.g. Pace, 1983a, p. 185; 1993, p. 72; 2009, p. 26; Lohse & Smetana, 1985,
p. 281; Lohse et al., 1990, p. 123; Ahn & Ashe, 1992, p. 347; Assing, 2001, p. 252;
Gusarov, 2004, p. 14; a full list has been submitted to the Commission Secretariat).
Further, after 1991 the name CALLICERINI was used as valid only in 2 papers by 3
authors, while the name ATHETINI was used as the valid tribe name in at least 89
papers by 21 authors, including the widely used Palaearctic catalogue (Smetana,
2004, p. 362). This means that the stability of nomenclature will be better served by
suppressing the name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908, than by simply emending it to
remove the homonymy with the name CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845. If the name
CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 were emended, it would become the oldest available
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 57
name for the tribe, and the much more widely used name ATHETINI would become
invalid.
15. In the very few cases (6 papers by 11 authors) where the name CALLICERINA
Jakobson, 1908 was used at the rank of subtribe, whether as valid (Muona, 1979,
p. 23; Pace, 1985b, p. 170 (spelled as Callicerinae); Lohse, 1989, p. 199; Lohse et al.,
1990, p. 123; Elven et al., 2010, p. 87), or invalid (Newton & Thayer, 1992, p. 47), it
was always treated as a subtribe separate from ATHETINA. Therefore, a name for the
subtribe that includes the genus Callicerus but not Atheta is still needed. As pointed
out by Newton & Thayer (1992, p. 47) another available name exists for this subtribe,
GEOSTIBINA Seevers, 1978. Several papers suggest (e.g. Yosii & Sawada, 1976; Muona,
1979) that the genera Callicerus and Geostiba are related, and it is highly unlikely that
they will ever be placed in different subtribes. That means that the family-group name
that includes Callicerus, but not Geostiba, will not be needed. At the rank of subtribe,
the name GEOSTIBINA has been used as valid name in 9 papers by 11 authors (Seevers,
1978, p. 126; Pace 1983b, p. 97; 1984a, p. 316; 1984b, p. 215; 1985a, p. 98; Newton
& Thayer, 1992, p. 47; Newton et al., 2000, p. 370; Gouix & Klimaszewski, 2007,
p. 97; Elven et al., 2010, p. 87). Considering the history of usage of CALLICERINA and
GEOSTIBINA, the stability of nomenclature will be better served if the name CALLICERINI
Jakobson, 1908 is suppressed altogether, rather than emended to remove homonymy
with CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845, even with the endorsement that CALLICERINI
Jakobson, 1908 is not to be given priority over the family-group name ATHETINI
Casey, 1910.
16. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress for the purposes of both the Principle of
Priority and the Principle of Homonymy the following names:
(a) CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908;
(b) CALLICERINI Horion, 1967;
(Cc) CALLICERINI Lohse, 1969;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Callicera Panzer, 1809 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Bibio
aenea Fabricius, 1777;
(b) Callicerus Gravenhorst, 1802 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Callicerus obscurus Gravenhorst, 1802;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following
names:
(a) aenea Fabricius, 1777, as published in the binomen Bibio aenea Fabricius,
1777 (specific name of the type species of Callicera Panzer, 1809);
(b) obscurus Gravenhorst, 1802, as published in the binomen Callicerus
obscurus Gravenhorst, 1802 (specific name of the type species of Callicerus
Gravenhorst, 1802);
(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following
names:
(a) CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845, type genus Callicera Panzer, 1809 (Insecta,
Diptera);
(b) ATHETINI Casey, 1910, type genus Atheta Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Cole-
optera);
58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
(Cc) GEOSTIBINA Seevers, 1978, type genus Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (Insecta,
Coleoptera);
(5) to place on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology the following names:
(a) CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 (junior homonym of CALLICERINI Rondani,
1845), as suppressed in (1) (a) above;
(b) CALLICERINI Horion, 1967 (junior homonym of CALLICERINI Rondani,
1845), as suppressed in (1) (b) above;
(c) CALLICERINI Lohse, 1969 Gunior homonym of CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845),
as suppressed in (1) (c) above.
Acknowledgements
I am greatly indebted to Al Newton, Volker Assing, Chris Thompson and Thomas
Pape for comments on a draft of this petition, and to Alexey Solodovnikov for his
help in obtaining some references. I am grateful to an anonymous Commissioner for
reviewing the manuscript.
References
Ahn, K-J. & Ashe J.S. 1992. Revision of the intertidal aleocharine genus Pontomalota
Casey (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) with a discussion of its phylogenetic relationships.
Entomologica Scandinavica, 23: 347-359.
Assing, V. 2001. A revision of Callicerus Gravenhorst, 1802, Pseuwdosemiris Machulka, 1935,
and Saphocallus Sharp, 1888 (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Aleocharinae, Athetini). Beitrdge
zur Entomologie, 51(2): 247-334.
Bartsch, H. 2009. Tvdvingar: Blomflugor. Diptera: Syrphidae: Eristalinae & Microdontinae.
Nationalnyckeln till Sveriges flora och fauna. 478 pp. Artdatabanken, Uppsala.
Benick, G. & Lohse, G.A. 1974. 14. Tribus: Callicerini (Athetae). Pp. 72-220 in Freude, H..,
Harde, K.W. & Lohse, G.A. (Eds.), Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. Band 5, Staphylinidae IT
(Hypocyphtinae und Aleocharinae). Pselaphidae. Goecke & Evers Verlag, Krefeld.
Casey, T.L. 1910. New species of the staphylinid tribe Myrmedoniini. Memoirs on the
Coleoptera I. Pp.1-183. The New Era Printing Company, Lancaster.
Cheng, X., Lii, J, Huang, C., Zhou, H., Dai, Z & Zhang, G. 2000. Determination of
phylogenetic position of Pipizini (Diptera: Syrphidae): based on molecular biological and
morphological data. Science in China (Series C), 43(2): 146-156.
Elven, H., Bachmann, L. & Gusarov, V.I. 2010. Phylogeny of the tribe Athetini (Coleoptera:
Staphylinidae) inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear sequence data. Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution, 37: 84-100.
Fabricius, J.C. 1777. Genera insectorum: eorumque characteres naturales secundam numerum,
figuram, situm et proportionem, omnium partium oris adiecta mantissa specierum nuper
detectarum. (xvi), 310 pp. Litteris Mich. Friedr. Bartschii, Chilonii [= Kiel].
Gouix, N. & Klimaszewski, J. 2007. Catalogue of aleocharine rove beetles of Canada and Alaska
(Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Aleocharinae). 165 pp. Pensoft, Sofia & Moscow.
Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1802. Coleoptera Microptera Brunsvicensia nec non Exoticorum quotquot
exstant in collectionibus Entomologorum Brunsvicensium. \xvi, 207 pp. C. Reichard,
Brunswick.
Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1806. Monographia Coleopterorum Micropterorum. xvi, 248 pp. Henrich
Dieterich, Gottingen.
Gusaroy, V.I. 2004. A revision of the genus Lypoglossa Fenyes, 1918 (Coleoptera: Staphylini-
dae: Aleocharinae). Zootaxa, 747: 1-36.
Haghebaert, G. 1990. Plataraea verbekei sp. n., a new Callicerini from Romania (Coleoptera,
Staphylinidae, Aleocharinae). Bulletin et Annales de la Société Royale Belge
d Entomologie, 126: 91-93.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 oo
Horion, A. 1967. Faunistik der Mitteleuropdischen Kafer. Band XI: Staphylinidae. 3. Teil:
Habrocerinae bis Aleocharinae (ohne Subtribus Athetae). xxiv, 419 pp. Uberlingen-
Bodensee.
Jakobson, G.G. 1908. Zhuki Rossii i Zapadnoi Yevropy. Rukovodstvo k opredeleniyu zhukoyv.
Vypusk 6. Pp. 401-480, pls. 29, 34, 43, 47-51. A.F. Devrien, Sankt-Peterburg.
Jakobson, G.G. 1909. Zhuki Rossii i Zapadnoi Yevropy. Rukovodstvo k opredeleniyu zhukov.
Vypusk 7. Pp. 481-560, pls. 52, 54-58, 60, 61. A.F. Devrien, Sankt-Peterburg.
Kistner, D.H. 1976. Revision and reclassification of the genus Goniusa Casey with a larval
description and ant host records (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Sociobiology, 2(1): 83-95.
Kofler, A. & Benick G. 1983. Sechster Beitrag zur Kaferfauna des Lechtales (Tirol, Osterreich)
(Insecta: Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Berichte des Naturwissenschaftlich-Medizinischen
Vereins in Innsbruck, 70: 145-154.
Lohse, G.A. 1969. Vorschlage zur Anderung der Aleocharinensystematik (Coleoptera:
Staphylinidae). Pp. 169-175 in Bericht tiber die 10. Wanderversammlung deutscher
Entomologen, 15. bis 19. September 1965 in Dresden. Deutsche Akademie der Landwirt-
schaftswissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin.
Lohse, G.A. 1974. 22. U.F.: Aleocharinae. Pp. 11-304 in Freude, H., Harde, K.W. & Lohse,
G.A. (Eds.), Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. Band 5, Staphylinidae IT (Hypocyphtinae und
Aleocharinae). Pselaphidae. Goecke & Evers Verlag, Krefeld.
Lohse, G.A. 1989. Erganzungen und Berichtigungen zu Freude-Harde-Lohse ‘Die Kafer
Mitteleuropas’ Band 5 (1974). Pp. 185-243 in Lohse, G.A. & Lucht, W.H. Die Kéfer
Mitteleuropas. 1. Supplementband mit Katalogteil. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.
Lohse, G.A., Klimaszewski, J. & Smetana, A. 1990. Revision of Arctic Aleocharinae of North
America (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). The Coleopterists Bulletin, 44(2): 121-202.
Lohse, G.A. & Smetana, A. 1985. Revision of the types of species of Oxypodini and Athetini
(sensu Seevers) described by Mannerheim and Maklin from North America (Coleoptera:
Staphylinidae). The Coleopterists Bulletin, 39(3): 281-300.
Muona, J. 1979. Staphylinidae. Pp. 14-28 in Silfverberg, H. Enumeratio Coleopterorum
Fennoscandiae et Daniae. Helsingin Hy6nteisvaihtoyhdistys, Helsinki.
Newton. A.F. & Thayer, M.K. 1992. Current classification and family-group names in
Staphyliniformia (Coleoptera). Fieldiana: Zoology, New Series, 67: i-iv, 1-92 pp.
Newton, A.F., Thayer, M.K., Ashe, J.S. & Chandler, D.S. 2000. Staphylinidae Latreille, 1802.
Pp. 272-418 in Arnett, R.H. & Thomas, M.C. (Eds.), American beetles. Vol. 1.
Archostemata, Myxophaga, Adephaga, Polyphaga: Staphyliniformia. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Florida.
Pace, R. 1982. Studio su alcune specie iberische e magrebine di Atheta del sottogenere
Microdota Muls. & Rey (Coleoptera Staphylinidae). Giornale Italiano di Entomologia, 1:
73-83.
Pace, R. 1983a. Il genere Tropimenelytron Scheerpeltz (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Nowvelle
Revue d’Entomologie, 13(2): 185-190.
Pace, R. 1983b. Aleocharinae orofile del Venezuela raccolte dal prof. Franz. I. Bolitocharinae
& Callicerini Geostibae (Coleoptera Staphylinidae). Bollettino della Societa Entomologica
Italiana, Genova, 115(4—7): 91-102.
Pace, R. 1984a. Aleocharinae dell’Himalaya. LI. Contributo alla conoscenza delle Aleochari-
nae (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (N.S. ),
20(3): 309-339.
Pace, R. 1984b. Nuove Aleocharinae microftalme mediterranee e dell’Iran, del Muséum
d’Histoire Naturelle di Ginevra (Coleoptera Staphylinidae). Archives des Sciences
(Genéve), 37(2): 211-219.
Pace, R. 1985a. Aleocharinae riportate dall’Himalaya dal Prof. Franz. Parte I. (Coleoptera
Staphylinidae). Nouvelle Revue d’Entomologie (N. S.), 2(1): 91-105.
Pace, R. 1985b. Aleocharinae dell’Himalaya raccolte da Guillaume de Rougemont (Coleop-
tera Staphylinidae). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 12: 165-191.
Pace, R. 1991. Aleocharinae dello Yemen (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Bollettino del Museo
Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 15: 125—150.
60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Pace, R. 1993. Aleocharinae della Cina (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Bollettino del Museo
Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 17 [1990]: 69-126.
Pace, R. 2009. Aleocharinae del Cile raccolte dal Dr P.M. Giachino (Coleoptera, Staphylini-
dae). Lavori — Societa Veneziana di Scienze Naturali, 34: 25-32.
Panzer, G.W.F. 1809. Faunae insectorum Germanicae initiae oder Deutschlands Insecten. Heft
104. 24 pp., 24 pls. Felssecker, Nurnberg.
Rondani, C. 1845. Ordinamento sistematico dei generi italiani degli insetti ditter1. Nuovi Annali
delle Scienze Naturali, Bologna, (2)2 [1844]: 443-459.
Rondani, C. 1856. Dipterologiae Italicae prodromus, vol. 1. 228 pp. A. Stoschi, Parma.
Rotheray, G. & Gilbert, F. 1999. Phylogeny of Palaearctic Syrphidae (Diptera): evidence from
larval stages. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 127: 1-112.
Sabrosky, C.W. 1999. Family-group names in Diptera. Myia, 10: 2-360.
Seevers, C.H. 1978. A generic and tribal revision of the North American Aleocharinae
(Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Fieldiana: Zoology, 71: i—vi, 1-275.
Smetana, A. 2004. Subfamily Aleocharinae Fleming, 1821. Pp. 353-494 in Lobl, I. & Smetana,
A. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera, vol. 2. Hydrophyloidea—Histeroidea—
Staphylinoidea. Apollo Books, Stenstrup.
Stourac, P. & Krasensky, P. 2002. Faunistic records from the Czech Republic — 156.
Coleoptera: Staphylinidae, Omaliinae: Omaliini, Oxytelinae: Oxytelini, Staphylininae:
Staphylinini, Tachyporinae: Tachyporini, Aleocharinae: Homalotini, Aleocharinae:
Bolitocharini, Aleocharinae: Callicerini. Klapalekiana, 38(3—4): 263-265.
Stahls, G., Hippa, H., Rotherau, G., Muona, J & Gilbert, F. 2003. Phylogeny of Syrphidae
(Diptera) inferred from combined analysis of molecular and morphological characters.
Systematic Entomology, 28: 433-450.
Thomson, C.G. 1858. Férsdk till uppstallning af Sveriges Staphyliner. Ofversigt af Kongl.
Vetenskaps-Akademiens Forhandlingar, 15: 27-40.
Thomson, C.G. 1867. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, synoptiskt bearbetade, vol. 9. 408 pp.
Lundbergska Boktryckeriet, Lund.
Yosii, R. & Sawada, K. 1976. Studies on the genus Atheta Thomson and its allies (Coleoptera,
Staphylinidae). II: Diagnostic characters of genera and subgenera with description of
representative species. Contributions from the Biological Laboratory, Kyoto University,
25(1): 11-140.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 61
Case 3539
Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Senometopia Macquart, 1834 and
Drino Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 (Insecta, Diptera, TACHINIDAE):
proposed conservation of usage
James E. O’Hara
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 960 Carling Avenue, K.W. Neatby
Building, Ottawa, Ontario, K]1A 0C6, Canada
(e-mail: james.ohara@agr.gc.ca)
Neal L. Evenhuis
J. Linsley Gressitt Center for Entomological Research, Bishop Museum,
1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-2704, U.S.A.
(e-mail: NealE@bishopmuseum.org)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 70.2 of the Code, is to
conserve the current usage of the names Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830,
Senometopia Macquart, 1834 and Drino Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 for three well-
established genera of tachinid flies. The type species of Sturmia has long been
assumed to be Sturmia vanessae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 and the type species of
Senometopia Macquart, 1834 has long been assumed to be Carcelia aurifrons
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. However, the correct type species for both Sturmia and
Senometopia is Sturmia atropivora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, which is currently
recognised as a valid species of Drino. Acceptance of S. atropivora as the type species
of Sturmia and Senometopia would change the current concept of those genera to that
of Drino, and the names of the current genera Sturmia and Senometopia would
change to those of the next available genus-group names. To avoid the nomenclatural
instability that would result from following the Principle of Priority, it is proposed
that all type fixations for Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 prior to that of Sturmia
vanessae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by Robineau-Desvoidy (1863) be set aside, along
with all type fixations for Senometopia Macquart, 1834 prior to that of Carcelia
aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by Townsend (1916).
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; TACHINIDAE; Sturmia; Senometopia;
Drino; Sturmia vanessae; Carcelia aurifrons; Sturmia atropivora; tachinid flies;
cosmopolitan.
1. Robineau-Desvoidy (1830, p. 171) proposed the genus Sturmia for four
new species: S. atropivora Robineau-Desvoidy, S. floricola Robineau-Desvoidy, S.
concolor Robineau-Desvoidy and S. vanessae Robineau-Desvoidy. A type species
was not designated.
2. Desmarest in d’Orbigny (1848, p. 77) designated Sturmia atropivora Robineau-
Desvoidy, 1830 as the type species of Sturmia. This designation was overlooked by
subsequent authors until relatively recently.
62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
3. Robineau-Desvoidy (1863, p. 888) designated Sturmia vanessae Robineau-
Desvoidy, 1830 as the type species of Sturmia. The universally-accepted concept of
Sturmia is based on this type species designation. Sturmia vanessae is currently
treated as a junior subjective synonym of Tachina bella Meigen, 1824; the accepted
valid name of this taxon is Sturmia bella.
4. Macquart (1834, p. 296) proposed the genus Senometopia for 17 previously
described species, including S. atropivora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. A type species
was not designated.
5. Stephens in Richardson (1838, p. 478) designated Sturmia atropivora Robineau-
Desvoidy, 1830 as the type species of Senometopia. As with Sturmia, this designation
was overlooked by subsequent authors until relatively recently.
6. Townsend (1916, p. 8) designated Carcelia aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830
as the type species of Senometopia. The universally accepted concept of Senometopia
is based on this type species designation. Carcelia aurifrons is currently treated as a
junior subjective synonym of Tachina excisa Fallén, 1820; the accepted valid name of
this taxon is Senometopia excisa.
7. Evenhuis & Thompson (1990, p. 238) discovered the overlooked type species
designation for Sturmia by Desmarest in d’Orbigny (1848). They suggested that
‘Application to I.C.Z.N. for suppression of Desmarest’s designation may be neces-
sary to maintain stability of taxonomy and usage’ (p. 238). More recently, O’Hara
et al. (2009, p. 118) and Evenhuis et al. (2010, p. 154) called attention to Desmarest’s
designation and noted that an application to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature was in preparation to suppress any type designations for
Sturmia prior to the one by Robineau-Desvoidy (1863, p. 888). This present
application is the one alluded to by O’Hara et al. (2009) and Evenhuis et al. (2010).
8. Evenhuis & Thompson (1990, p. 237) discovered an overlooked type species
designation for Senometopia of Sturmia atropivora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by
Desmarest in d’Orbigny (1848) and suggested that the designation be suppressed in
favor of Carcelia aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. An earlier type species
designation for Senometopia than the one by Desmarest has since been discovered
(Evenhuis 2010): that of Stephens in Richardson (1838, p. 478) who similarly
designated Sturmia atropivora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830.
9. Nomenclatural instability would result from the adoption of Sturmia atropivora
as the type species of Sturmia and Senometopia, as designated by Desmarest in
d’Orbigny (1848) and Stephens in Richardson (1838), respectively. Sturmia
atropivora is currently treated as a valid species of Drino Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863
(e.g. Herting & Dely-Draskovits, 1993; O’Hara et al., 2009). Acceptance of S.
atropivora as the type species of Sturmia and Senometopia would result in the names
Sturmia, Senometopia and Drino becoming subjective synonyms, with Sturmia having
priority over the other two. The genus currently known as Drino would take the name
Sturmia (with Drino in subjective synonymy). The genus currently known as Sturmia
would take the name Oodigaster Macquart, 1854 (the next available genus-group
name for an included species; the type species of Oodigaster was recently fixed as
Tachina bella Meigen, 1824 by O’Hara et al. (2009) under Article 70.3.2 of the Code).
The genus currently known as Senometopia would take the name Stenometopia
Agassiz, 1846 (an unjustified emendation of Senometopia and the next available
genus-group name).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 63
10. Regional catalogues of Diptera record Drino (ExORISTINAE Robineau-Desvoidy,
1963, ERYCIINI Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 [relative precedence of family-group names
protected by Article 35.5 of the Code]; including subgenera Zygobothria Mik, 1891
and Palexorista Townsend, 1921, both commonly treated as separate genera prior to
the 1990s) as a cosmopolitan genus with about 125 species; Sturmia (EXORISTINAE,
GONIINI Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830; prior to the 1990s commonly classified in the
STURMIINI Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863) is recorded as a widely distributed genus in
the Old World with 11 species; and Senometopia (EXORISTINAE, ERYCIINI; prior to the
1990s commonly placed as a subgenus of Carcelia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) is also
recorded as a widely distributed genus in the Old World with about 60 species (e.g.
Crosskey, 1977, 1980; Cantrell & Crosskey, 1989; Herting & Dely-Draskovits, 1993;
O’Hara & Wood, 2004; O’Hara et al., 2009; [Guimaraes (1971) recorded Sturmia
from the Neotropical Region in error]). Switching the name of the genus Drino to
Sturmia would cause substantial confusion in the tachinid literature. Furthermore,
the concept of the former sTURMIINI would be changed. The name sTURMIINI is
currently regarded as a subjective synonym of GoNIINI, but acceptance of Desmarest’s
type species designation for Sturmia would place it in subjective synonymy with
ERYCIINI (the latter name having priority; Sabrosky, 1999, pp. 130, 293).
11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all type species fixations for the nominal
genus Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 before that of Sturmia vanessae
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by Robineau-Desvoidy (1863);
(2) to use its plenary power to set aside all type species fixations for the nominal
genus Senometopia Macquart, 1834 before that of Carcelia aurifrons
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by Townsend (1916);
(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species
Sturmia vanessae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as ruled in (1) above;
(b) Senometopia Macquart, 1834 (gender: feminine), type species Carcelia
aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as ruled in (2) above;
(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) vanessae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen Sturmia
vanessae (specific name of the type species of Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy,
1830);
(b) aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen Carcelia
aurifrons (specific name of the type species of Senometopia Macquart,
1834).
References
Agassiz, L. 1846. Nomenclatoris zoologici index universalis, continens nomina systematica
classium, ordinum, familiarum et generum animalium omnium, tam viventium quam
fossilium, secundum ordinem alphabeticum unicum disposita, adjectis homonymiis
plantarum, nec non variis adnotationibus et emendationibus. [= Fasc. XII]. viii, 393 pp. Jent
& Gassman, Soloduri [= Solothurn, Switzerland].
Cantrell, B.K. & Crosskey, R.W. 1989. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 733-784. In Evenhuis, N.L.
(Ed.), Catalog of the Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanian Regions. Bishop Museum
Special Publication 86. 1155 pp. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu & E.J. Brill, Leiden.
64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Crosskey, R.W. 1977. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 586-697. In Delfinado, M.D. & Hardy, D.E.
(Eds.), A Catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region. Volume III. Suborder Cyclor-
rphapha (excluding Division Aschiza). 854 pp. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Crosskey, R.W. 1980. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 822-882. In Crosskey, R.W. (Ed.), Catalogue of
the Diptera of the Afrotropical Region. 1437 pp. British Museum (Natural History),
London.
Evenhuis, N.L. 2010. Type designations of Diptera (Insecta) in the Encyclopaedia Metro-
politana. Zootaxa, 2653: 37-50.
Evenhuis, N.L., O’Hara, J.E., Pape, T. & Pont, A.C. 2010. Nomenclatural studies toward a
world list of Diptera genus-group names. Part I: André-Jean-Baptiste Robineau-
Desvoidy. Zootaxa, 2373: 1-265.
Evenhuis, N.L. & Thompson, F.C. 1990. Type designations of genus-group names of Diptera
given in d’Orbigny’s Dictionnaire Universel d'Histoire Naturelle. Bishop Museum
Occasional Papers, 30: 226-258.
Guimaraes, J.H. 1971. Family Tachinidae (Larvaevoridae). A catalogue of the Diptera of the
Americas south of the United States, 104: 1-333.
Herting, B. & Dely-Draskovits, A. 1993. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 118-458 in Soés, A. & Papp,
L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera. Volume 13. Anthomyiidae — Tachinidae. 624
pp. Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest.
Macquart, J. 1834. Insectes diptéres du nord de la France. Tome V. Athéricéres: créophiles,
oestrides, myopaires, conopsaires, scénopiniens, céphalopsides. 232 pp., 6 pls. L. Danel, Lille.
Macquart, J. 1854. Nouvelles observations sur les diptéres d’Europe de la tribu des tachinaires.
(Suite.) Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (3)2: 373-446, pls. 13-15.
Mik, J. 1891. Dipterologische Miscellen. XIX. Wiener Entomologische Zeitung, 10: 189-194.
O’Hara, J.E., Shima, H. & Zhang, C.-t. 2009. Annotated catalogue of the Tachinidae (Insecta:
Diptera) of China. Zootaxa, 2190: 1-236.
O’Hara, J.E. & Wood, D.M. 2004. Catalogue of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of America north of
Mexico. Memoirs on Entomology, International, 18: iv, 410 pp.
Orbigny, C.V.D. d’. (Ed.). 1848. [Livraison 134], pp. 65-128. Dictionnaire universel @histoire
naturelle résumant et complétant.... Tome douziéme. 816 pp. C. Renard, Paris.
Richardson, C. 1838. [Lexicon] in Smedley, E., Rose, H[ugh].J. & Rose, H[enry].J., (Eds.),
Encyclopaedia metropolitana; or, universal dictionary of knowledge, on an original plan:
comprising the twofold advantage of a philosophical and an alphabetical arrangement, with
appropriate engravings. Volume XXIV. [Miscellaneous & lexicographical, Vol. 11]. 864 pp.
B. Fellowes, F. & J. Rivington, Duncan & Malcolm, Suttaby & Co., E. Hodgson,
J. Dowding, G. Lawford, J.M. Richardson, J. Bohn, T. Allman, J. Bain, S. Hodgson, F.C.
Westley, L.A. Lewis, T. Hodges, H. Washbourne, London; J.H. Parker, T. Laycock,
Oxford; J. & J.J. Deighton, Cambridge.
Robineau-Desvoidy, J.B. 1830. Essai sur les myodaires. Mémoires présentés par divers savants
a l’Académie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France. Sciences Mathématiques et
Physiques, (2)2: 1-813.
Robineau-Desvoidy, J.B. 1863. Histoire naturelle des diptéres des environs de Paris. Tome
premier. xvi, 1143 pp. V. Masson et fils, Paris, F. Wagner, Leipzig, and Williams &
Norgate, London.
Sabrosky, C.W. 1999. Family-group names in Diptera. An annotated catalog. Myia, 10: 1-360.
Townsend, C.H.T. 1916. Designations of muscoid genotypes, with new genera and species.
Insecutor Inscitiae Menstruus, 4: 4-12.
Townsend, C.H.T. 1921. Some new muscoid genera ancient and recent. Insecutor Inscitiae
Menstruus, 9: 132-134.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 65
Case 3542
Trachelus Jurine, 1807 (Hymenoptera, CEPHIDAE): proposed precedence
over Astatus Panzer, [1801]
Stephan M. Blank and Andreas Taeger
Senckenberg Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Eberswalder Str. 90,
15374 Mtincheberg, Germany (e-mail: Stephan.Blank@senckenberg.de;
Andreas. Taeger@senckenberg.de)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the widely used genus name TJrachelus Jurine, 1807 in its accustomed usage.
The name Trachelus is threatened by its senior synonym Astatus Panzer, [1801]. Strict
application of the Principle of Priority would also involve the recombination with a
new genus name for the ‘black grain stem sawfly’, Trachelus tabidus (Fabricius, 1775),
which is a pest of cereals in the southern West Palaearctic and in North America. It
is proposed that Trachelus should be given precedence over Astatus whenever the two
are considered to be synonyms.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; CEPHIDAE; Astatus; Trachelus;
sawfly; West Palaearctic; Nearctic.
1. Panzer ({1801a], Heft 83, p. 12) proposed the generic name Astatus, type species
by monotypy Sirex troglodyta Fabricius, 1787 (pp. 258-259). We follow Sherborn
(1923, p. 567) in dating Hefte 80-83 of Panzer, including the original description of
Astatus, to the year 1801. Evenhuis (1997, p. 600) gave the possible period of
publication as after June 1800 and before 17 June 1801. Rohwer (19lla, p. 74)
designated Sirex troglodyta Fabricius, 1787 as the type species of Astatus, providing
proper reference to Panzer’s ([1801a]) description but erroneously quoting Jurine as
the author of Astatus. The citation of the wrong author was corrected by Rohwer
(1911b, p. 218). Rohwer’s (1911a) subsequent designation of a type species is not
valid, because Panzer ({1801a]) in Heft 83 (p. 12) included A. troglodyta as the only
Astatus species, which is therefore type species by monotypy (Taeger & Blank, 2006,
p. 327). Additional species were later associated with Astatus by Panzer ({1801b]) in
Heft 85 published on 26 December 1801 (Evenhuis, 1997, p. 600).
2. Latreille (1797, pp. 114-115) proposed the generic name Astatus for a wasp with
no species originally included. In the preface of his book, Latreille (1797, p. xiii)
corrected the spelling of Astatus Latreille, 1797 to Astata, which represents the
correction of an incorrect original spelling under the provisions of Article 32.5.1.1
and thus a justified emendation under the provisions of Article 33.2.2 of the Code.
Latreille (1803, pp. 336-337) included as the first species Tiphia abdominalis Panzer,
[1798] (Heft 53, p. 5), which became type species by subsequent designation (Opinion
139, p. 42, 20 December 1942). The name Astata is currently applied to a genus of
SPHECIDAE (Pulawski, 2010). Several authors, for example Abe & Smith (1991),
erroneously claimed Astatus Panzer, [1801] (CEPHIDAE) to be a junior homonym of
66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Astatus Latreille, 1797 (SPHECIDAE). Konow (1908) stated that such a homonymy does
not exist due to the emendation included in Latreille’s (1797, p. xiii) preface. The
incorrect original spelling Astatus Latreille, 1797 accordingly has no influence on the
present case.
3. [Jurine] in Panzer (1801c, p. 163) proposed the generic name Astatus and
included ‘Sirex pygmaeus. Banchus spinipes Panzer (Banchus viridator Fabric.
inedit.)’. Astatus [Jurine], 1801 is unavailable, because it was included in the work
commonly known as the ‘Erlangen List’, which has been suppressed under the
plenary power for the purpose of nomenclature (Opinion 135, 13 June 1939;
Direction 4, 12 June 1954).
4. Jurine (1807, pp. 70-72, plate 2, fig. 9) replaced the generic name Astatus [Jurine]
in Panzer, 1801 by Trachelus. Of the six species included originally in Trachelus,
Rohwer (1911la, p. 91) designated Sirex tabidus Fabricius, 1775 (p. 326) as the type
species of Trachelus. It is evident from Jurine’s (1807, p. 72) list of species that the
genus was intended to include species associated with Astatus by Panzer ([1801a],
[1801b]) and some of the species associated with Astatus by Klug (1803, pp. 47-56):
‘Troglodita. Fabr. Cephus’, a misspelling of the species-group name troglodyta,
originally described as Sirex troglodyta Fabricius, 1787 (pp. 258-259), currently
treated as a valid species of the genus Jrachelus Jurine, 1807; “Compressus.* Fabr.
Cephus’, originally described as Sirex compressus Fabricius, 1793 (p. 131), currently
treated as a valid species of the genus Janus Stephens, 1829; ‘Pygmaeus. Fabr.
Cephus’, a misspelling of the species-group name pygmeus, originally described as
Sirex pygmeus Linnaeus, 1767 (pp. 929-930), currently treated as a valid species of
the genus Cephus Latreille, 1803; ‘Tabidus. Fabr. Cephus’, originally described as
Sirex tabidus Fabricius, 1775 (p. 326), currently treated as a valid species of the genus
Trachelus Jurine, 1807; ‘Satyrus. Panzer. Astatus’, originally described as Astatus
satyrus Panzer, [1801b] (p. 12), currently treated as a valid species of the genus
Hartigia Schiodte, 1839; ‘Haemorroidalis. Gravé’, originally described as Tenthredo
haemorrhoidalis Fabricius, 1781 (p. 417), currently treated as a valid species of the
genus Hartigia Schiodte, 1839.
5. Billberg (1820, p. 98) described Cepha, type species by monotypy Sirex tabidus
Fabricius, 1775 (p. 326). Owing to its similarity to the well-known genus-group name
Cephus Latreille, 1803, Morice & Durrant (1915, p. 384) proposed the replacement
name Trachelastatus. Cepha Billberg, 1820 and Trachelastatus Morice & Durrant,
1915 are junior objective synonyms of Trachelus Jurine, 1807 by virtue of having the
same type species.
6. Erroneously supposing Astatus to have been described twice, by Latreille
(1797) and Panzer ([1801]), Schulz (1906, p. 211) proposed the replacement name
Eumetabolus for Astatus Panzer, [1801].
7. Benson (1935) subdivided the group within CEPHIDAE, which today is represented
by the same genus Trachelus, into Ateuchopus Konow, 1896, Microcephus Benson,
1935, Neateuchopus Benson, 1935 and Trachelus Jurine, 1807, and listed ‘Astatus
Jurine auct., 1801, nec Latreille, 1796’ as a synonym of Trachelus. In a subsequent
work, Benson (1946) followed a wider concept of Trachelus, in which he grouped
‘together into one genus [i.e. into Trachelus] the species previously included in
Trachelus and Eumetabolus, largely on the similarity in the form of their female saw-
sheaths and their male sternites’ (p. 104). He listed as junior synonyms Ateuchopus,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 67
Microcephus, Neateuchopus, and in addition Eumetabolus Schulz, 1906 and Trache-
lastatus Morice & Durrant, 1915. The name Astatus Panzer, [1801] was not
considered by Benson (1946), but its synonymy with Trachelus has been implied by
the synonymy of its replacement name Eumetabolus. Subsequent works have usually
followed Benson’s (1946) concept. Trachelus now comprises eight species native to
the Palaearctic (Blank et al., 2009, Taeger et al., 2010). None of these works has
discussed the priority of Astatus Panzer, [1801] over Trachelus Jurine, 1807 until
Taeger & Blank (2006, p. 327) and Taeger et al. (2010, p. 53). Although without
comment, Dusmet (1949) used the name Astatus in combination with ‘niger Harr.’,
which possibly corresponds with Trachelus troglodyta following Konow’s misinter-
pretation of this name. Also without providing an explanation, Weiffenbach (1982)
treated as valid genus names both Astatus for A. flavicornis (Lucas, 1849) (Lucas
[1848]-1849, pp. 342-345, pl. 19) and Trachelus for T. tabidus and T. ‘troglodytes’, a
misspelling of troglodyta.
8. Trachelus tabidus (Fabricius, 1775), known as the ‘black grain stem sawfly’, is
native to the southern part of the West Palaearctic region and it was inadvertently
introduced into the Nearctic. Larvae of Trachelus, particularly of T. tabidus, and of
Cephus pygmeus (Linnaeus, 1767) are common pests of cultivated grain crops such as
durum and bread wheat, barley, and oats. They feed internally in the stalks causing
reduced grain weight and losses at harvest due to stalk break. About 85 years ago
[. tabidus and C. pygmeus achieved pest status in the United States (Gahan, 1920;
Houser, 1935; Udine, 1941; Wallace & McNeal, 1966). In the West Palaearctic,
Trachelus species have been the subject of various pest management publications (e.g.
Gol’berg, 1986; Banita et al., 1992; Miller et al., 1993). Between 1917 and 2004 at least
25 works were published in applied entomology including information on T. tabidus
and related species of Trachelus. Among 203 works published in various fields of
entomology between 1900 and 2010, which refer to tabidus, 192 treated this species in
Trachelus and seven in the subgenus Trachelus. Taxonomic catalogues and major
identification works published during the past 60 years have consistently used the
name Trachelus as valid but not Astatus (e.g. Benson, 1951, 1968; Middlekauff, 1969;
Verzhutskii, 1973; Smith, 1979; Muche, 1981; Abe & Smith, 1991: Goulet, 1992;
Zhelochovtsev & Zinovjev, 1993; Stange, 1997; Taeger et al., 2010). Only the
outdated North American Catalog of Ross (1951) still treated tabidus under Cephus
(Trachelus). A list of 255 works published after 1946, which demonstrates the widely
accustomed use of Trachelus for the genus and T. tabidus for the pest organism,
has been forwarded to the Commission Secretariat. A Google search for the
string ‘Trachelus tabidus’ provided a total of 1,600 hits of various origins, while
‘Astatus tabidus’ was found only 70 times, mostly referring to digitalised historical
publications.
9. Strict application of the Principle of Priority would result in considerable
nomenclatural confusion, because a pest organism, Trachelus tabidus, would receive
a new generic name. Since the senior synonym Astatus Panzer, [1801] has been used
several times after 1899 as a valid genus-group name until Benson’s (1946) revision
and rarely also later, the priority of the junior synonym Trachelus Jurine, 1807 cannot
be reversed in accordance with the provisions of Article 23.9.1.1 of the Code. We
propose that, to ensure nomenclatural stability, the Commission rule to give priority
to Trachelus Jurine, 1807 over Astatus Panzer, [1801] in its accustomed usage
68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
whenever the two generic names are considered to be synonyms. The case has to be
referred to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Article 23.9.3 of the
Code.
10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the generic name Trachelus Jurine, 1807
precedence over the name Astatus Panzer, [1801], whenever the two are
considered to be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Trachelus Jurine, 1807 (genus: masculine), type species by subsequent
designation by Rohwer (191la) Sirex tabidus Fabricius, 1775, with the
endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name Astatus
Panzer, [1801], whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) Astatus Panzer, [1801] (genus: masculine), type species by monotypy Sirex
troglodyta Fabricius, 1787, with the endorsement that it is not to be given
priority over the name Trachelus Jurine, 1807, whenever the two are
considered to be synonyms;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) tabidus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Sirex tabidus (specific
name of the type species of Trachelus Jurine, 1807);
(b) troglodyta Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Sirex troglodyta
(specific name of the type species of Astatus Panzer, [1801]).
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to A.D. Liston (Miincheberg), A. Shinohara (Tokyo), W.J. Pulawski
(San Francisco, CA), D.R. Smith (Washington, DC), M. Wei (Changsha) for
critically reading earlier versions of the manuscript and supporting this application.
References
Abe, M. & Smith, D.R. 1991. The genus-group names of Symphyta (Hymenoptera) and their
type species. Esakia, 31: 1-115.
Banita, E., Popov, C., Luca, E., Cojocaru, D., Paunescu, G. & Vilau, F. 1992. Elemente de
combatere integrata a viespilor griului (Cephus pygmaeus Latr. si Trachelus tabidus L.).
Probleme de Protectia Plantelor, 20(3-4): 169-185.
Benson, R.B. 1935. On the genera of Cephidae, and the erection of a new family Syntexidae
(Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, including Zoology,
Botany, and Geology, 10th series, 16: 535-553.
Benson, R.B. 1946. Classification of the Cephidae (Hymenoptera Symphyta). Transactions of
the Royal Entomological Society of London, 96(6): 89-108.
Benson, R.B. 1951. Hymenoptera, Symphyta. Handbooks for the Identification of British
Insects, 6(2a): 1-49.
Benson, R.B. 1968. Hymenoptera from Turkey, Symphyta. Bulletin of the British Museum
(Natural History), Entomology series, 22(4): 111-207.
Blank, S.M., Taeger, A., Liston, A.D., Smith, D.R., Rasnitsyn, A.P., Shinohara, A., Heidemaa,
M. & Viitasaari, M. 2009. Studies toward a World Catalog of Symphyta (Hymenoptera).
Zootaxa, 2254: 1-96.
Billberg, G.J. 1820. Enumeratio Insectorum in Museo Gust. Joh. Billberg. 138 pp. Gadelianis,
Stockholm.
Dusmet, J.M. 1949. Revision de los Tenthredinidos de Espafia. Publicaciones de la Real
Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales (Centenario), 1(10): 441-484.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 69
Evenhuis, N.L. 1997. Litteratura taxonomica dipterorum (1758-1930). Volumes 1-2: vii, 871
pp. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden.
Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae sistens Insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species,
adjectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus. [30], 832 pp. Korte, Flensburgi
& Lipsiae.
Fabricius, J.C. 1781. Species Insectorum exhibentes eorum differentias specificas, synonyma
auctorum, loca natalia, metamorphosin adiectis observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 1. viii,
552 pp. C.E. Bohnii, Hamburgi & Kilonii.
Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa Insectorum, sistens corum species nuper detectas : adjectis
characteribus genericis, differentiis specificis, emendationibus, observationibus, vol. 1. xx,
348 pp. Christ. Gottl. Proft., Hafnie.
Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologia Systematica, vol. 2. Pp. 478-487. Hafniae.
Gahan, A.B. 1920. Black grain-stem sawfly of Europe in the United States. United States
Deptartment of Agriculture, Bulletin, 834: 1-18.
Gol’berg, A.M. 1986. Biology of the stem sawflies Trachelus tabidus and Cephus pygmaeus in
the Negev of southern Israel. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 40(2): 117-121.
Goulet, H. 1992. The genera and subgenera of the sawflies of Canada and Alaska: Hymen-
optera: Symphyta. Jn The insects and arachnids of Canada (Part 20). Agriculture Canada
Publication, 1876: 1-235.
Houser, J.S. 1935. The black grain-stem sawfly, Trachelus tabidus (Fab.), in Ohio. Journal of
Economic Entomology, 28: 457-458.
Jurine, L. 1807. Nouvelle méthode de classer les Hyménopteéres et les Diptéres, vol. 4(I1). 319 pp.,
7 pls., Genéve & Paris.
Klug, F. 1803. Monographia Siricum Germaniae atque generum illis adnumeratorum. xii + 64, [7]
pp. F. Schtppel, Berolini.
Konow, F.W. 1908. Litteratur. (Hym.). Zetschrif fiir systematische Hymenopterologie und
Dipterologie, 8(1): 47-48.
Latreille, P.A. 1797. Précis des caractéres génériques des Insectes, disposés dans un ordre naturel
par le Citoyen Latreille. An V. xiv, 201, [7] pp. Prévot, Paris & F. Bordeaux, Brive.
Latreille, P.A. 1803. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des Crustacés et des Insectes,
vol. 3[1802—1803](1-12). 467 pp. Dufart, Paris.
Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 533-1327. Salvii, Holmiae.
Lucas, P.H. [1848]-1849. Exploration scientifique de Il’ Algérie pendant les Années 1840, 1841,
1842, publiée par Ordre du Gouvernement et avec le Concours d’une Commission
Académique. Sciences physiques. Zoologie. III. Histoire naturelle des Animaux articulés.
Troisiéme partie. Insectes, vol. 3. Pp. 3, 3-527. Imprimerie Nationale, Paris.
Middlekauff, W.W. 1969. The Cephid stem borers of California (Hymenoptera: Cephidae).
Bulletin of the California Insect Survey, 11: 1-18.
Miller, R.H., El Masri, S. & Al Jundi, K. 1993. Plant density and wheat stem sawfly
(Hymenoptera: Cephidae) resistance in Syrian wheats. Bulletin of Entomological Research,
83: 95-102.
Morice, F.D. & Durrant, J.H. 1915. The authorship and first publication of the Jurinean genera
of Hymenoptera: Being a reprint of a long-lost work by Panzer, with a translation into
English, an introduction, and bibliographical and critical notes. Transactions of the
Entomological Society of London, {1914](3-4): 339-436.
Muche, W.H. 1981. Die Cephidae der Erde (Hym., Cephidae). Deutsche Entomologische
Zeitschrift, Neue Folge, 28(4—5): 239-295.
Panzer, G.W.F. [1798]. Faunae Insectorum Germanicae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten.
Vol. 5[1798](53): 24 pp., 24 pls. Felssecker, Niirnberg.
Panzer, G.W.F. [180la]. Faunae Insectorum Germanicae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten.
Vol. 7[1799-1801](83). 24 pp., 24 pls. Felssecker, Niirnberg.
Panzer, G.W.F. [1801b]. Faunae Insectorum Germanicae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten.
Vol. 8[1801—1804](85). 24 pp., 24 pls. Felssecker, Niirnberg.
Panzer, G.W.F. 1801c. Nachricht von einem neuen entomolischen Werke, des Hrn. Prof.
Jurine in Geneve. Intelligenzblatt der Litteratur-Zeitung, 1: 160-165 [reprinted by Morice
& Durrant, 1915, pp. 357-365].
70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Pulawski, W.J. 2010. Astata. 38 pp. In Pulawski, W.J., Catalog of Sphecidae sensu lato (=
Apoidea excluding Apidae). http://research.calacademy.org/files/Departments/ent/
sphecidae/Genera_and_species_pdf/Astata.pdf, accessed on 18.10.2010.
Rohwer, S.A. 191 1a. Technical papers on miscellaneous forest insects. II. The genotypes of the
sawflies and woodwasps, or the superfamily Tenthredinoidea. United States Department
of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology, Technical series, 20: 69-109.
Rohwer, S.A. 1911b. Additions and corrections to ‘The genotypes of the sawflies and
woodwasps, or the superfamily Tenthredinoidea’ (Hymen.). Entomological News
and Proceedings of the Entomological Section of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia, 22: 218-219.
Ross, H.H. 1951. Suborder Symphyta (= Chalastogastra) [except the Siricoidea, the Pamphilii-
dae, and the genus Periclista]. Pp. 4-89 in Muesebeck, C.F.W., Krombein, K.V. &
Townes, H.K. (Eds.), Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico. Synoptic Catalog, vol. 2.
1420 pp. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Monograph, Washington
DC.
Schulz, W.A. 1906. Strandgut. Spolia Hymenopterologica, [1906]: 76-269.
Sherborn, C.D. 1923. On the dates of G. W. F. Panzer’s ‘Fauna Insect. German.’, 1792-1844.
Annals and Magazine of Natural History, including Zoology, Botany, and Geology,
9th series, 11(64): 566-567.
Smith, D.R. 1979. Suborder Symphyta. Pp. 3-137 in Krombein, K.V., Hurd, P.D., Jr., Smith,
D.R. & Burks, B.D. (Eds.), Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Volume
1, Symphyta and Apocrita (Parasitica). xvi, 1198 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington DC.
Stange, L.A. 1997. The stem sawflies of Florida (Hymenoptera: Cephidae). Entomology
Circular, 382: 1+.
Taeger, A. & Blank, S.M. 2006. Bibliographic notes. Pp. 319-330 in Blank, S.M., Schmidt, S.
& Taeger, A. (Eds.), Recent Sawfly Research: Synthesis and Prospects. Goecke & Evers,
Keltern.
Taeger, A., Blank, S.M. & Liston, A.D. 2010. World catalog of Symphyta (Hymenoptera).
Zootaxa, 2580: 1-1064.
Udine, E.J. 1941. The black grain stem sawfly and the European wheat stem sawfly in the
United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Circular, 607: 1-9.
Verzhutskii, B.N. 1973. Opredelitel’ lichinok rogokhvostov i pilil’shchikov Sibirii i Dal’nego
Vostoka. 140 pp. Nauka, Moskva.
Wallace, L.E. & McNeal, F.H. 1966. Stem sawflies of economic importance in grain crops in
the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin, 1350: 1-50.
Weiffenbach, H. 1982. Uber die von W. Schacht, Miinchen, in den Jahren 1975-1980 in
Stidspanien gesammelten Blattwespen (Hymenoptera, Tenthredinoidea). Nachrichtenblatt
der Bayerischen Entomologen, 31(6): 107-112.
Zhelochovtsev, A.N. & Zinovjev, A.G. 1993. Hymenoptera Part VI Symphyta. Jn Medvedev,
G.S. (Ed.), Keys to the Insects of the European Part of the USSR, vol. 3(6). 387 pp.
Amerind Publ. Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 wi
Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Callidea lateralis
Guérin-Meéneville, 1838 (currently Lamprocornis lateralis; Insecta, Heteroptera)
(Case 3523; see BZN 67: 213-217, 314)
Petr Kment
Department of Entomology, National Museum, Kunratice 1, CZ-148 00 Praha,
Czech Republic (e-mail: sigara@post.cz)
Petr Banar
Department of Entomology, Moravian Museum, Hviezdoslavova 29a, CZ-627 00
Brno — Slatina, Czech Republic (e-mail: petrbanar@seznam.cz)
We studied carefully the detailed argumentation of Tsai & Rédei (2010; Zootaxa,
2572: 25-47) concerning Lamprocoris obtusus (Westwood, 1837), a senior objective
synonym of Lamprocoris lateralis (Guérin-Méneville, 1838). There is no doubt about
the following facts emphasised by Rédei & Tsai (BZN 67: 213-217):
1) The senior name L. obtusus was greatly overlooked by subsequent authors and
has never been positively treated as different from L. Jateralis;
ii) There is extensive and substantial literature on this biological species under the
junior name L. Jateralis; ;
iii) This species is of economic importance, and is rather common in several parts
of Southeast Asia, so it appears also in the agricultural literature and popular books
on insects;
iv) Changing the name of this species simply because of adherence to the Principle
of Priority is undesirable and would threaten stability of scUTELLERIDAE nomen-
clature.
For these reasons, we strongly support the solution suggested by Rédei & Tsai
(BZN 67: 213), i.e. to use the Commission’s plenary power to suppress the specific
name Callidea obtusa Westwood, 1837 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy, as is summarised in paragraph 9 of
Case 3523.
Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Allosaurus Marsh, 1877
(Dinosauria, Theropoda) by designation of a neotype for its type species Allosaurus
fragilis Marsh, 1877
(Case 3506; see BZN 67: 53-56; 178, 255-256, 332)
V. Demirjian
lI Canyon Terrace, Newport Coast, CA 92657 U.S.A.
(e-mail: vahedemirjian@cox.net)
The taxonomy of the species referred to Allosaurus has been a contentious issue, as
summarised by Paul (1988, 2010) and Chure (2000). Bakker (2000) and Paul (2010)
claimed that Allosaurus fragilis (based on USNM 4734) is distinct from other
specimens (DINO 2560, AMNH 666, etc.) by the proportions of its skull. However,
Chure (2000) demonstrated that the supposed shortness of the skull of USNM 4734
was based on an erroneous reconstruction of the skull by Gilmore (1920).
72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Additional references
Bakker, R.T. 2000. Brontosaur killers: Late Jurassic allosaurids as sabre-tooth cat analogues.
Gaia, 15: 145-158.
Paul, G. 2010. The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs. 320 pp. Princeton University Press.
Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger,
1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines)
(Case 3463; see BZN 66: 34-50, 80-87, 169-186, 274-290, 352-357; 67: 71-90,
170-178, 246-254, 319-331)
Marinus S. Hoogmoed
Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi!CZO, Caixa Postal 399, 66017—970 Belém, Parad,
Brazil (e-mail: hoogmoed_apires@terra.com.br)
Since Case 3463 was submitted to ICZN comments on the name of the Aldabra
tortoise have been many and varied. The most recent paper on the issue is by Frazier
& Matyot (2010), who extensively comment on the identity of the lectotype of
Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831 (RMNH 3231). As former curator of the herpeto-
logical collection of the Natural History museum in Leiden, the Netherlands
(RMNH), I was rather amazed to see this article, knowing that neither one of the
authors ever has seen the specimen discussed, neither during my tenure in the RMNH
(1966-2004) nor between 2004 and the publication of their mentioned article. It
therefore seems necessary to add some more comments to the already (too) extensive
literature of this case.
Identification
Frazier & Matyot (2010) present arguments against the credibility of the data that
accompany the lectotype of T. dussumieri. They make statements that contradict all
we know about the specimen and its history, and even reach the conclusion that ‘it
is possible that the last survivors of an endemic species of tortoise were on Mahé at
the time of Dussumier’s visits to Seychelles possibly starting as early as 1823, and
therefore that his specimen that is now in Leiden [RMNH 3231] is not an Aldabra
tortoise but rather a Seychelles tortoise’ (Frazier & Matyot, 2010, p. 41). Note that
this conclusion was based on assumptions only and that the authors never studied the
specimen. Frazier & Matyot (2010) did not use the photographs of the specimen
(RMNH 3231) available in the literature (Gerlach, 2004a; Bour, 2006; Griinewald,
2009) to provide evidence for their remarkable statement about the identity of
RMNH 3231, although they were well aware of the existence of these photos
(Frazier, 2006b; Frazier & Matyot, 2010). Up until now, RMNH 3231 has been
studied probably by six professional herpetologists only: Hermann Schlegel, J.E.
Gray, A.A.W. Hubrecht, Roger Bour, Peter C.H. Pritchard, and myself, and more
recently by F. Griinewald (2009; BZN 67: 177), a Dutch tortoise hobbyist. Only the
last four of these persons are alive and have participated in the debate on Case 3463.
These seven persons independently reached the conclusion that RMNH 3231, based
on external morphological characters, was an Aldabra tortoise, Dipsochelys dus-
sumieri. Austin et al. (2003) used mtDNA of old type specimens of non-Madagascan
Aldabrachelys (including the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri) to determine their
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 73
identity. A piece of alcohol-preserved tissue from the groin was taken by me from
RMNH 3231 in 2000 and provided to E.N. Arnold for analysis. This tissue provided
a 336 base pair (bp) partial sequence (Austin et al., 2003). There was minimal
variation among the sequences studied, although RMNH 3231 (haplotype B)
diverged by two nucleotide substitutions (a negligible 0.46% divergence) from the
most common haplotype A. Austin et al. (2003) concluded “The individuals within
the studied sample that differ from the common haplotype by 1-4 bp (0.23-0.9%
divergence), including the type of A. dussumieri, would also be referable to the same
single species, for even closely related tortoise species that are widely accepted show
much greater differentiation (see above)’, and ‘On the basis of its uniformity
compared with other tortoises, the mtDNA of non-Madagascan Aldabrachelys
studied here suggests that only a single species may be involved’. Thus an indepen-
dent method reached the same conclusion as the seven persons mentioned before.
This conclusion of Austin et al. (2003) was wholeheartedly subscribed to by Frazier
(2006b, 370) in his book review of Gerlach (2004). However, Frazier & Matyot (2010)
now cite and interpret the Austin et al. (2003) data differently from Frazier (2006b)
in order to ‘support’ their aberrant opinion on the identity of RMNH 3231 (see
below).
The statement by Frazier & Matyot (2010, p. 42) °... considering the very limited
information that has been published about RMNH 3231, it has simply been assumed
that the specimen is an Aldabra tortoise ...’ is an assumption on the part of these
authors that is only based on their prejudiced supposition that RMNH 3231 cannot
be an Aldabra tortoise. But without studying the specimen themselves they cannot
provide any hard evidence against the independent identifications of RMNH 3231
made so far by competent herpetologists.
It may be noted here that Matyot (BZN 66: 352) was mixing up two specimens
when he said that the specimen described by Duméril & Bibron (1835) was the same
one as that given to Leiden. First, the Leiden specimen (RMNH 3231) was already
in Leiden when Dumeéril & Bibron (1835) published that description (Gray, 1831b).
Secondly, the fact that the specimen described by Dumeéril & Bibron (1835) is still in
Paris under number NMNH 1942 (Frazier & Matyot, 2010), invalidates Matyot’s
(BZN 66: 352) observations on this subject.
Name and locality
Hoogmoed et al. (2010) published an account of the type specimens of turtles,
tortoises and crocodiles in the Leiden Museum. They provided data on the origin and
the locality of RMNH 3231, which are contested by Frazier & Matyot (2010).
Gray (183la, p. 3) mentioned Test. Dussumieri, Schegel [sic]. Hoogmoed et al.
(2010) have pointed out that although Gray (1831 a, b) attributed the name Testudo
Dussumieri to Schlegel, this was not correct. The specimen was received from Paris
with that name ‘attached’ to it. This was repeated by Frazier & Matyot (2010), who
gave an extensive overview of the early history of this name. Gray (1831b) visited
European museums somewhere before 1831, because the preface to his Synopsis
Reptilium is dated January 1831. In his preface Gray (1831b) explains the rules under
which he was allowed to see material: ‘In each of these museums all the specimens
were intrusted to me, to describe, draw, or examine them, as might best suit my
purpose, without any restraint, except that, at Leyden, Herr Temminck requested I
74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
would indicate in what Museum I had seen it, and the name under which it was there
described, a rule which I hope I have most faithfully kept.’
A young specimen of Testudo dussumieri was present in Leiden during Gray’s visit
there, as we can see from the text on p. 9 (Gray, 1831b), where in the synonymy of
Testudo indica he gives a short description of Testudo dussumieri: ‘Junior. Testa nigra
margine laterali angulato, areolis magnis. Test. Dussumieri, Schlegel MSS. (v. Mus.
Leyd.) — Pet.Gaz. t. 76, f. 4.” and also mentions the distribution (and collectors) of the
species as ‘Habitat in India Orientali, Gefi. Hardwicke, Insula Mauritiana, Insula
Aldebra, M. Dussumiere, Galapagos, D. Harlan, Seychelles, (v. v. Hort. Zool., et t.
Mus. Brit., Col. Chir., Par., et D. Bell.)’. Gray (1831b) made his reference to Schlegel
[“MSS (v. Mus. Leyde)’] at the request of Temminck (see above). MSS is not further
explained, but probably stands for manuscript or manuscripts, but we can not be
certain of that, it may also have meant a name on a label, on a bottle, on a shelf, or
even an oral communication (most likely by H. Schlegel). The ‘v’ in front of Mus.
Leyde undoubtedly stands for ‘vide’(= seen [by Gray]). Thus, on one page, we have
all essential information (apart from the fact that it belonged to the Leiden collection)
about Testudo dussumieri together: name, collector and locality. However, unfortu-
nately Gray (1831b) presents his data in such a way that the three can not
unambiguously be connected, although circumstantial evidence is strong. It seems
important here to highlight another part of Gray’s (1831b) preface in which he states:
oH the Royal Museum of Leyden and the Museum of the Senckenbergers
Society of Francfort having been formed within these few years, the greater part of
the specimens are quite fresh and in the most perfect condition, and their history is
generally known and accurately marked upon them.’ From this text it is clear that
Gray (1831b) had full confidence in the data that accompanied the specimens he saw
in Leiden.
Fortunately, concerning Testudo dussumieri there is a solid, printed statement that
ties specimen, collector and locality together. Hoogmoed et al. (2010) mentioned that
Temminck & Schlegel (1834) made a clear statement about the provenance of
RMNH 3231: it was received from the Paris museum under the name Test.
Dussumieri and was brought from the island of Aldebra by Dussumier. This
statement in French is cited in full and translated by Bour (2006) and copied again
by Frazier & Matyot (2010, p. 33). However, after having copied the clear statement,
which does not leave any room for speculation, Frazier & Matyot (2010) start
questioning its validity on the basis of confused arguments. Hubrecht (1881) also
discussed RMNH 3231 and stated that “The locality from whence the specimen was
brought is sharply fixed. Dussumier himself on his travels in the tropics collected it
in the island of Aldabra (N.W. of Madagascar) ...’. This citation in Frazier &
Matyot (2010, p. 36) again is followed by the comment that Hubrecht did not explain
how he determined the locality of his specimen was ‘sharply fixed’.
The answer to all queries of Frazier & Matyot (2010) is very simple and
unambiguous: Temminck & Schlegel (1834) made the published, printed statement
about name, collector, locality and specimen on the basis of documentation (in
whichever form) they had received from Paris with the specimen concerned.
Hubrecht (1881) did the same, basing himself on the register and data on the label
fixed to the bottle in which RMNH 3231 was (and still is) kept. In the RMNH it
always has been good practice to trust the data provided with material, until the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 75
contrary is proven. In this case there was no reason for any doubt, and Gray (1831b)
was of the same opinion. Apparently Frazier & Matyot (2010) are unable, or rather
unwilling, to accept obvious facts and lose themselves in a maze of suppositions and
speculations about a locality that never has been doubted.
Frazier & Matyot (2010) cited Austin et al. (2003) to discredit the locality from
whence RMNH 3231 came. They erroneously attributed all statements about T.
dussumieri in this paper to Bour, who was one of the three co-authors and should not
be singled out as being responsible for those data; statements in the paper are the
shared responsibility of all three co-authors. Frazier & Matyot (2010) did not cite the
reference correctly. They cite Austin et al. (2003) incompletely, and checking that
paper carefully gives a completely different picture from the one Frazier & Matyot
(2010) try to give. Frazier & Matyot (2010, p. 40) suggest that Austin et al. (2003)
doubted the type locality of 7. dussumieri, because in Table 2 the type locality is
indicated with a question-mark. However, in Table 1 and on p. 1419 Austin et al.
(2003) list the locality correctly as resp. “Insula Aldebra’ and ‘Aldabra’. The question-
mark in Table 2 under locality for T. dussumieri probably was a mistaken repeat of
the one on the line above concerning 7. daudini. This most likely was due to
carelessness in reading the proofs of this article which has several typos that could
and should easily have been avoided, e.g. in Table 1 RMNH 3231 is referred to as
RMNH 32311, in Figure 2 RMNH 3231 is listed as NMNH 3231, the legend of Table
2 refers to ““enBank”’ instead of GenBank, etc. Thus, there is no reason to accept
Frazier & Matyot’s (2010) reasoning about Austin et al. (2003) supposedly doubting
RMNH 3231’s locality.
Frazier & Matyot (2010, p. 38) incorrectly conclude that Hoogmoed et al. (2010)
contradict themselves when talking about the type locality of RMNH 3231. What
Hoogmoed et al. (2010) in effect were saying, is somewhat different from what Frazier
& Matyot (2010) suggest. Hoogmoed et al. (2010) stated clearly that the type locality
of RMNH 3231 is Aldabra and nowhere do they doubt this; they only cite two papers
that say that even had Dussumier not visited Aldabra he could easily have obtained
material from there (Bour et al., 2010; Cheke, BZN 67: 79). Hoogmoed et al. (2010)
do not make any statements about whether Dussumier picked the specimen up himself
on Aldabra or not, they just show that there is no reason to doubt the locality, because
that has been associated with RMNH 3231 from the beginning. And stating (Frazier
& Matyot, 2010) that Hoogmoed et al. (2010) had ‘. . . accepted Matyot’s conclusion
that Dussumier did not collect on Aldabra’ is stretching the truth a bit too far, to put
it mildly. The statements by Frazier & Matyot (2010) on p. 40 ‘... but it does not
remove the uncertainty about the origin of the specimen [RMNH 3231], on p. 41 that
‘If — as all evidence [which evidence do they mean?] indicates — the place of origin of
RMNH 3231 is Mahé, or even some other island in the granitic Seychelles, and
not Aldabra Atoll ...’ and on p. 42 (referring to MNHN 1942 and RMNH 3231)
‘... when in fact the locality data for both of these specimens are known to be
uncertain ...’ all can be considered wishful thinking, rather than the result of
accumulated scientific evidence. As shown here, none of the arguments of Frazier &
Matyot (2010) that RMNH 3231 is not from Aldabra, hold up against the known
facts, and the origin of RMNH 3231 undoubtedly remains Aldabra as was accepted
from the beginning (Gray, 1831b; Temminck & Schlegel, 1834; Hubrecht, 1881;
Gerlach, 2004; Griinwald, 2009; Hoogmoed (BZN 66: 354); Hoogmoed et al., 2010).
76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Labels
As to the labels and other paper concerning RMNH 3231 there have been some
unfortunate statements and mistakes in transcribing handwritten texts. Griinewald
(2009, p. 139, upper figure) showed an old label on the outside of the jar in which
RMNH 3231 is kept and gave as a legend ‘Het oorspronkelijke label van RMNH
3231, geschreven door John Edward Gray zelf? [The original label of RMNH 3231,
written by John Edward Gray himself]. This statement led Frazier & Matyot (2010)
to several wrong conclusions, even after Griinewald explained to them that his text
should have included ‘possibly’. There is no reason at all for such a statement,
because the RMNH never let (foreign) visitors write labels that were attached to
bottles etc. The collection of the RMNH was established in 1820. About the early
history of its management we know little and it even is not quite certain when the
present numbering system for reptiles and amphibians jointly was started, although
there are some clues to that. During my tenure at RMNH I did some investigation
into the matter that resulted in a notice I made in the register that was published by
Bohme & Koch (2010, p. 62) in translation: ‘numbers up to ca. RMNH 3760 are
classified systematically, higher numbers irregular. Up to that [number] it concerns
animals received up to ca. 1866. From RMNH 3760 [on] irregular with older
specimens (1837) and newer (1872, 1877) [intermixed]. I think that from the end of the
1860’s, beginning 1870’s (RMNH 3881 and further) it seems that specimens were
classified on receiving date’. Holthuis (1995) mentioned that A.A.W. Hubrecht, who
became curator of Vertebrates, especially fishes, on June 1, 1875 (and left the RMNH
in 1882) catalogued the alcohol-collection of fishes and that of reptiles and
amphibians (3759 lots). It is not clear from where Holthuis (1995) obtained these
data, but the number of lots agrees with the last catalogue number of the
systematically arranged reptile and amphibian alcohol material mentioned by me in
the remark in the RMNH register above. However, the dates of Hubrecht’s stay at
the RMNH do not seem to agree with the arrangement of material in the register.
Material received up to 1866 is all arranged systematically, between RMNH 3760 and
RMNH 3880 there is a mix of older and more recent specimens, and from RMNH
3881 on material is listed according to arrival date. It therefore seems likely that the
registering was done by William Marshall, who was assistant for Vertebrates at the
RMNH between 1868 and 1872, and whose active period at RMNH better coincides
with the arrangement of material in the register than that of Hubrecht. Another
possibility of course remains that Hubrecht indeed started the cataloguing (as
Holthuis, 1995 stated), in about 1875-1877, but that would mean that in the period
between 1866 and 1877 new material was not inserted in the collection at its proper
systematic place and this seems unlikely. I therefore assume Marshall was the one
that started the present day catalogue and numbering system of the collection of
reptiles and amphibians of the RMNH. Testudo dussumieri is registered in the middle
of a bunch of other species of Testudo in the first part of the RMNH register, where
specimens are arranged systematically. This shows the specimen was present by about
1870 when the numbering system started. The text in the handwritten register is clear
and unambiguous and reads as follows: “Testudo elephantina juv. Test. indica Ile
Aldabra (pres de Madagascar)’, and written above ‘(pres de Madagascar)’ is the
name Dussumier. There are no alterations or deletions in the text, only elephantina
is underlined, the meaning of which is not clear. This same information can be found
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 77
written on the old label on the outside of the jar in which RMNH 3231 is kept, in the
same hand, with the exception of the name of Dussumier. This could mean that the
label was written at the same time (late 1860’s, early 1870’s) as the register. Apart
from the original text on the label there is some more information (probably from a
later date) written on the label in a coarse hand in bold pencil (not in Indian ink as
supposed by Frazier & Matyot, 2010, p. 38): near the top middle and right hand:
‘nigrita D & B.’ and in the lower left corner, a bit above the bottom, in about the
place where RMNH labels generally show the collector, ‘Dussumier’ (Griinewald,
2009). Thus, there is a good chance that the old label on the bottle of RMNH 3231
is not the ‘original’ label as stated by Hoogmoed et al. (2010), and that it possibly
stems from after 1835 as suggested by Frazier & Matyot (2010). Anyway, it is a nearly
true copy of the data in the first RMNH register and of the data provided by
Temminck & Schlegel (1834). The only questionable matter that remains is why the
name Test. dussumieri, mentioned by Temminck & Schlegel (1834) and Gray (1831 b)
does not appear in the register or on the label. Thus, most likely the old label that is
nowadays on the outside of the bottle of RMNH 3231 was not seen by Gray, so he
must have based himself on other information.
Conclusion
Based on the arguments presented above I come to the conclusion that none of the
allegations presented by Frazier & Matyot (2010) about the identity and the validity
of the locality from which RMNH 3231 came can be substantiated by any hard
evidence and therefore should be regarded as void. These allegations should not be
taken into account in the discussion on Case 3463, trying to get accepted the
unnecessary designation of a neotype for Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812.
Additional references
Bohme, W. & Koch, A. 2010. On the type selection and re-typification of two monitor lizard
taxa (Squamata: Varanidae): Monitor bivittatus celebensis Schlegel, 1844 and Monitor
kordensis Meyer, 1874; with some comments and corrections on other name-bearing type
specimens. Zootaxa, 2440: 60-68.
Frazier J. & Matyot, P. 2010. On the identity of Monsieur Dussumier’s Dutch tortoise and the
lectotype of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831. Zootaxa, 2665: 29-50.
Grinewald, F. 2009. Museumcollecties. RMNH 3231 (Dipsochelys dussumieri) Gray, 1831.
Trionyx, 7: 136-142.
Holthuis, L.B. 1995. 1820-1958 Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie. 172 pp. Nationaal
Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden.
Hoogmoed, M.S., Gass6 Miracle, M.E. & van den Hoek Ostende L.W. 2010. Type specimens
of recent and fossil Testudines and Crocodylia in the collections of the Netherlands Centre
for Biodiversity Naturalis, Leiden, the Netherlands. Zoologische Mededelingen, Leiden,
84(8): 159-199.
Temminck, C.J. & Schlegel, H. 1834. Reptilia. In von Siebold, P.F., Fauna Japonica sive
Descriptio animalium, quae in itinere per Japonianum, jussu et auspiciis superiorum, qui
summum in India Batava Imperium tenent, suscepto, annis 1823-1830 colleget, notis
observationibus et adumbrationibus illustratis, vol. M1. xxii, 144 pp., 27 pls. J.G. Lalau,
Leiden.
No further comments on Case 3463 will be accepted for publication after 1 May 2011
unless they contain substantial new evidence that is likely to affect the vote.
78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of genus Rhynchotherium Falconer,
1868 (Mammalia; Proboscidea) by designation of Rhynchotherium falconeri Osborn,
1923 as the type species
(Case 3515; see BZN 67: 158-162, 256-257)
Maria Teresa Alberdi
Departamento de Paleobiologia, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, José
Gutiérrez Abascal, 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain (e-mail: malberdi@mncn.csic.es)
Eduardo Corona-M.
Centro INAH Morelos, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Matamoros
14, Acapatzingo, Cuernavaca, Morelos C.P. 62440, Mexico
(e-mail: ecoroma09@gmail.com)
Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales
Laboratorio de Arqueozoologia ““M. en C. Ticul Alvarez Solérzano”, Subdireccion
de Laboratorios y Apoyo Académico, INAH, Moneda # 16, Col. Centro, 06060
Mexico, D.F., Mexico (e-mail: arromatuS@yahoo.com.mx)
José Luis Prado
INCUAPA, Departamento de Arqueologia, Universidad Nacional del Centro, Del
Valle 5737, B7400J WI Olavarria, Argentina (e-mail: jprado@soc.unicen.edu.ar)
After a review of the opinion raised by Lucas (BZN 67: 158) and the comments by
Morgan (BZN 67: 256), we strongly support the proposal for the conservation of the
name Rhynchotherium, since the morphological characters are distinctive in the New
World gomphotheres of the Pliocene epoch, e.g. a relatively short mandible, broad
and with a symphysis obliquely depressed downwards and two lower tusks laterally
compressed or deeply oval, often bearing external enamel bands.
The assignation of a holotype was confused from the original designation by
Falconer (1868), since he used the cast of R. tlascalae for naming a new taxon [Tobien
(1973, p. 237) indicated that this cast pertained to an individual from the genus
Gomphotherium, not to Rhynchotherium]. This error was seen by Osborn (1936) and
he tried to correct it by suggesting R. browni as a neotype (see Osborn, 1936 fig. 452),
however this proposal was discarded and all the specimens retained in the genus
Rhynchotherium, since the most important diagnostic characters were those men-
tioned above for the mandible and the tusks, which enabled a reliable identification
as it could be seen in recent discoveries of this taxon; e.g. Mexico (Alberdi & Corona,
2005; Corona & Alberdi, 2006).
We have authored several taxonomic papers in which we discussed the specific and
generic statuses within GOMPHOTHERIIDAE and its taxonomy (Alberdi et al., 2002,
2004, 2007b, 2008, 2009; Corona & Alberdi, 2006; Prado et al., 2002, 2005). We have
also authored two papers about phylogeny and biogeography of trilophodont
gomphotheres in which the genus Rhynchotherium is included (Alberdi et al., 2007a;
Prado & Alberdi, 2008). In those two last papers we rejected the hypothesis that
Rhynchotherium was a direct ancestor of South American gomphotheres, and
supported the hypothesis that Sinomastodon is their sister group.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 i
For the proposal to conserve the genus name and for the taxonomic stability of the
group, a new type species is warranted, and certainly we do agree that in the first
instance it could be R. falconeri. However, this would not rule out further studies of
the group in order to determine a type species that better represents the main features
of this taxon.
Additional references
Alberdi, M.T., Cerdefio, E. & Prado, J.L. 2008. Stegomastodon platensis (Proboscidea,
Gomphotheriidae) en el Pleistoceno de Santiago del Estero, Argentina. Ameghiniana,
45(2): 257-271.
Alberdi, M.T. & Corona, E.M. 2005. Revisidn de los gonfoterios en el Cenozoico tardio de
México. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geologicas, 22(2): 246-260.
Alberdi, M.T., Juarez-Woo, J., Polaco, O.J. & Arroyo-Cabrales, J. 2009. Description of the
most complete skeleton of Stegomastodon (Mammalia, Gomphotheriidae) recorded for
the Mexican Late Pleistocene. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paltontologie, Abhand-
lungen, 251: 239-255.
Alberdi, M.T., Prado, J.L. & Cartelle, C. 2002. El registro de Stegomastodon (Mammalia,
Gomphotheriidae) en el Pleistoceno superior de Brasil. Revista Espafiola de Paleontole-
ogia, 17(2): 217-235.
Alberdi, M.T., Prado, J.L., Ortiz-Jaureguizar, E., Posadas, P. & Donato, M. 2007a. Historical
Biogeography of trilophodont gomphotheres (Mammalia, Proboscidea) reconstructed
applying Dispersion-Vicariance analysis. 4th European Meeting on the Palaeontology and
Stratigraphy of Latin America. Cuadernos del Museo Geominero IGME, 8: 9-14.
Alberdi, M.T., Prado, J.L., Perea, D. & Ubilla, M. 2007b. Stegomastodon waringi (Mammalia,
Proboscidea) from the Late Pleistocene of northeastern Uruguay. Neues Jahrbuch fiir
Geologie und Paldontologie Abhandlungen, 243(2): 179-189.
Alberdi, M.T., Prado, J.L. & Salas, R. 2004. The Pleistocene Gomphotheriidae (Proboscidea)
from Peru. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paltontologie, Abhandlungen, 231(3):
423-452.
Prado, J.L. & Alberdi, M.T. 2008. A Cladistic Analysis among Trilophodont Gomphotheres
(Mammalia, Proboscidea). With Special Attention to the South American Genera.
Palaeontology, 51(4): 903-915.
Prado, J.L., Alberdi, M.T., Azanza, B., Sanchez, B. & Frassinetti, D. 2005. The Pleistocene
Gomphotheriidae (Proboscidea) from South America. Quaternary International, 126-128:
21-30.
Prado, J.L., Alberdi, M.T. & Gémez, G.N. 2002. Late Pleistocene gomphotheres (Proboscidea)
from the Arroyo Tapalqué locality (Buenos Aires, Argentina) and their taxonomic and
biogeographic implication. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paldontologie, Abhandlungen,
225(2): 275-296.
80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Mastodon waringi Holland, 1920
(currently Haplomastodon waringi; Mammalia, Proboscidea) by designation of a
neotype
(Case 3480; see BZN 66: 164-167, 358-359; 67: 96, 181-182, 333)
Maria Teresa Alberdi
Departamento de Paleobiologia, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, José
Gutiérrez Abascal, 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain (e-mail: malberdi@mncn.csic.es)
Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales
Laboratorio de Arqueozoologia ““M. en C. Ticul Alvarez Solorzano”’, Subdireccion
de Laboratorios y Apoyo Académico, INAH, Moneda # 16, Col. Centro, 06060
Mexico, D.F., Mexico (e-mail: arromatuS@yahoo.com.mx)
Eduardo Corona-M.
Centro INAH Morelos, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Matamoros
14, Acapatzingo, Cuernavaca, Morelos C.P. 62440, Mexico
(e-mail: ecoroma09@gmail.com)
José Luis Prado
INCUAPA, Departamento de Arqueologia, Universidad Nacional del Centro, Del
Valle 5737, B7400J WI Olavarria, Argentina (e-mail: jprado@soc.unicen.edu.ar)
Oscar J. Polacot (deceased)
Laboratorio de Arqueozoologia ““M. en C. Ticul Alvarez Solérzano”’, Subdireccién
de Laboratorios y Apoyo Académico, INAH, Moneda # 16, Col. Centro, 06060
Mexico, D.F., Mexico
We certainly recognise the problem suggested by Lucas (BZN 67: 181) in regard to
the name differences between the South American gomphotheres. However, before
dealing with the question as to whether or not a neotype for Mastodon waringi should
be proposed, we consider that a decision in regard to the validity or otherwise of the
genus name Haplomastodon should be made. In that regard, the following statements
should be considered during the discussion of Lucas’s proposal:
(1) Supporting the use of the name Haplomastodon Hoffstetter, 1950, characterised
by the absence of foramina transversa in the atlas. This name was proposed as a
subgenus of Stegomastodon with type species Mastodon chimborazi Proanio, 1922.
The diagnostic characters of the subgenus Haplomastodon indicated by Hoffstetter
(1950, 1952) are not significant, because they are the same as those of the genus
Stegomastodon, and some of them (i.e. open foramina) are quite variable, as pointed
out by Simpson & Paula Couto (1957). These authors also looked in detail for the
differences between Stegosmastodon and Haplomastodon, finding that there were
really very few and concluding that the latter genus would be a morphological
intermediate between Cuvieronius and Stegomastodon; the same conclusion was
stated by the authors in their Summary (p. 185), i.e. Haplomastodon is believed to be
about as closely related to Cuvieronius as to Stegomastodon.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 81
Prado et al. (2005), in agreement with Simpson & Paula Couto (1957), considered
that the genus Haplomastodon could not be clearly differentiated from Stegomasto-
don. The character of the foramina transversa in the atlas and axis vertebrae is
variable in the specimens from the Araxa locality, that is, it could be either present
or absent (Simpson & Paula Couto, 1957:167—168). The distinguishing characters
between these genera vary greatly in respect to the animal’s age and are, therefore,
not very good; both genera are very similar in the skull shape — elephantoid type,
adult tusks usually straight or slightly curved at the tip and the mesial part of the
maxilla with hemimaxilla straight and in contact (not divergent as in Cuvieronius).
Alberdi & Prado in their studies of gomphotheres from several localities of South
America (Alberdi et al., 2002, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009; Alberdi & Corona, 2005; Prado
et al., 2002, 2005; Prado & Alberdi, 2008) found specimens either with or without
foramina transversa in the atlas within the same species. They also observed that the
only differences between the two genera (Haplomastodon and Stegomastodon) are
found in the morphology of premolar and molar occlusal surfaces, where patterns
(trefoils) are more complicated, or there are more accentuated plications (pticostilia)
in Stegomastodon than in Haplomastodon, and also there are certain angulations on
the lophGid)s more accentuated in Stegomastodon than in Haplomastodon, the last
with more single trefoils (posttrites and prettrites) less developed than in Stegomas-
todon where they are more complicated. The differential characters of both genera are
not enough to separate those taxa at the genus level, but only as subgenera.
Consequently, Prado et al. (2005) synonymised Haplomastodon with Stegomasto-
don, including two species: S. waringi and S. platensis.
(2) The proposal of Mastodon waringi as the neotype for the genus Haplomastodon
by Lucas (BZN 66: 164) and supported by Pasenko (BZN 67: 96) should be overruled
since the main problem would be confirming whether or not Haplomastodon is a
junior synonym of Stegomastodon as we assessed. Furthermore, Ferretti’s (BZN 66:
358) proposal for designating Mastodon chimborazi as a neotype should be also
questioned on the same grounds as those mentioned above, unless a decision is taken
with regard to changing the generic status of Haplomastodon.
Additional references
Alberdi, M.T., Cerdefio, E. & Prado, J.L. 2008. Stegomastodon platensis (Proboscidea,
Gomphotheriidae) en el Pleistoceno de Santiago del Estero, Argentina. Ameghiniana,
45(2): 257-271.
Alberdi, M.T. & Corona, E.M. 2005. Revision de los gonfoterios en el Cenozoico tardio de
México. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geologicas, 22(2): 246-260.
Alberdi, M.T., Juarez-Woo, J., Polaco, O.J. & Arroyo-Cabrales, J. 2009. Description of the
most complete skeleton of Stegomastodon (Mammalia, Gomphotheriidae) recorded for
the Mexican Late Pleistocene. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paldontologie, Abhanda-
lungen, 251: 239-255.
Alberdi, M.T., Prado, J.L., Perea, D. & Ubilla, M. 2007. Stegomastodon waringi (Mammalia,
Proboscidea) from the Late Pleistocene of northeastern Uruguay. Neues Jahrbuch fiir
Geologie und Paldontologie, Abhandlungen, 243(2): 179-189.
Hofistetter, R. 1952. Les mammifeéres Pléistocénes de la République de L’Equateur. Mémoires
de la Société Géologique de France, Nouvelle Série, 31: 1-391.
Prado, J.L. & Alberdi, M.T. 2008. A Cladistic Analysis among Trilophodont Gomphotheres
(Mammalia, Proboscidea). With Special Attention to the South American Genera.
Palaleontology, 51(4): 903-915.
82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
OPINION 2266 (Case 3494)
Atlanta inflata Gray, 1850 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, PTEROTRACHEOIDEA,
ATLANTIDAE): Specific name conserved
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of the heteropod Atlanta
inflata Gray, 1850 (ATLANTIDAE), originally published as a primary homonym of the
pteropod Atlanta inflata d’Orbigny, 1836 (usually cited as Limacina inflata, currently
Heliconoides inflata) (LIMACINIDAE), is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary
homonym. This conserves the name of a heteropod commonly found in Pacific Ocean
plankton.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Heteropoda; Pteropoda;
PTEROTRACHEOIDEA; ATLANTIDAE; LIMACINIDAE; Atlanta; Limacina; Atlanta inflata;
Heliconoides inflata; gastropods.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the specific name Atlanta
inflata Gray, 1850 is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym
of Atlanta inflata d’Orbigny, 1836.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) inflata Gray, 1850, as published in the binomen Atlanta inflata, with the
endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary
homonym of Atlanta inflata dOrbigny, 1836;
(b) inflata d’Orbigny, 1836, as published in the binomen Atlanta inflata.
History of Case 3494
An application to conserve the specific name of the heteropod Atlanta inflata Gray,
1850 (ATLANTIDAB), originally published as a primary homonym of the pteropod
Atlanta inflata d’Orbigny, 1836 (usually cited as Limacina inflata, currently Helico-
noides inflata) (LIMACINIDAE) by ruling that the name is not invalid by reason of being
a junior primary homonym was received from Arie W. Janssen (National Natural
History Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) and Roger R. Seapy (California State
University, Fullerton, California, U.S.A.) on 21 April 2009. After correspondence the
case was published in BZN 66: 247-249 (September 2009). The title, abstract and
keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments
were received on this case.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 September 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 66: 248. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
2010 the votes were as follows:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 83
Affirmative votes — 22: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier,
Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Minelli, Papp, Patterson,
Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou.
Negative votes — 3: Lamas, Lim and Pape.
Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and Pyle were on leave of absence.
Voting AGAINST, Lamas said that he felt the authors had presented no quantified
evidence on how ‘well-known’ the name Af/anta inflata Gray, 1850 was, therefore he
saw no strong need to conserve this primary homonymous name, particularly if a
junior subjective synonym (Atlanta quoyii Gray, 1850) was available. He also noted
that the work by Richter (1974), who supported this synonymy, was not listed among
the references.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
inflata, Atlanta, Gray, 1850, Explanation to the plates. In Gray, M.E. Figures of molluscous
animals selected from various authors, etched for the use of students, vol. 4, Longman,
Brown, Green & Longmans, London, p. 101.
inflata, Atlanta, @Orbigny, 1836, Voyage dans l’Amérique meéridionale ..., vol. 5(3).
Mollusques, pp. 49-184. Bertrand, Paris, p. 174.
84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
OPINION 2267 (Case 3492)
Heliconius tristero Brower, 1996 and Heliconius melpomene mocoa
Brower, 1996 (Lepidoptera: NYMPHALIDAE): suppression of Heliconius
melpomene bellula Brown, 1979 not approved
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the application for the proposed conser-
vation of the species-group names Heliconius tristero Brower, 1996 and Heliconius
melpomene mocoa Brower, 1996 (Lepidoptera: NYMPHALIDAE) for mimetic butterflies
from the Putumayo region of southeastern Colombia by suppressing the senior name
Heliconius melpomene bellula Brown, 1979 is not approved.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Lepidoptera; NYMPHALIDAE; Helico-
nius; Heliconius tristero; Heliconius melpomene mocoa; Heliconius melpomene bellula;
butterflies; Colombia.
Ruling
(1) Itis hereby ruled that the application for the proposed suppression of the name
Heliconius melpomene bellula Brown, 1979 is not approved.
(2) No names are placed on the Official Lists or Indexes in this ruling.
History of Case 3492
An application to conserve the species-group names Heliconius tristero Brower, 1996
and Heliconius melpomene mocoa Brower, 1996 (Lepidoptera: NYMPHALIDAE) for
mimetic butterflies from the Putumayo region of southeastern Colombia by suppress-
ing the senior name Heliconius melpomene bellula Brown, 1979, was received from
Andrew V.Z. Brower (Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, U.S.A.)
on 10 April 2009. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 66: 256-260
(September 2009). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the
Commission’s website. No comments were received on this case.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 66: 258. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
2010 the votes were as follows: |
Affirmative votes — 10: Ballerio, Brothers, Halliday, Harvey, Lamas, Minelli, Papp,
Winston, Yanega and Zhou.
Negative votes — 13: Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Grygier, Kojima, Kottelat, Kullander,
Lim, Pape, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol and Zhang.
Fautin and Krell abstained. Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and Pyle were on leave of
absence.
Grygier, voting AGAINST, said this Case was premature, inasmuch as it pertained
to very recent, ongoing and still unstable taxonomy, and because the hypothetical
other ‘parent’ taxon (besides tristero) of the supposedly hybrid holotype of bellula
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 85
had not been confirmed. Whether that taxon exists, and whether it proves to be a
subspecies of tristero or a different species entirely, would have a bearing on the
availability of bellula, as paragraph 5 already suggested (N.B.: ‘species’ in line 6 of
that paragraph should be ‘subspecies’). Kottelat, voting AGAINST, was also
disappointed in the case and felt it was confused and conjectural. He said that this
was a taxonomic rather than a nomenclatural issue. Unless and until demonstrated,
the hybrid hypothesis remained only a hypothesis, which was not a reason to
suppress a name. He also commented that it was hard to imagine that a name first
created in 1996 was now so important that it could not disappear.
No names are placed on Official Lists or Indexes and the issue is left open for
subsequent workers to follow the precepts of the Code or to make new proposals to
the Commission.
86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
OPINION 2268 (Case 3473)
Conops testaceus Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Myopa testacea; Insecta,
Diptera): specific name conserved by designation of a neotype
Abstract. The Commission has conserved the established usage of the specific name
Myopa testacea (Linnaeus, 1767) for a well-known and widespread species of
thick-headed fly (Diptera, CONoPIDAE) by setting aside all previous type fixations and
designating a neotype.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; CONOPIDAE; MYOPINAE; Myopa; Myopa
testacea; thick-headed flies; Palaearctic region.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power all previous type fixations for the nominal species
Conops testaceus Linnaeus, 1767 are hereby set aside and the male specimen
labelled ‘NEOTYPE designated by D.K. Clements, J.-H. Stuke & PJ.
Chandler’ and deposited in the Natural History Museum, London, is hereby
designated as the neotype.
(2) The name festaceus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Conops
testacea (spelling emended to testaceus in this Opinion) and as defined by the
neotype designated in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3473
An application to conserve the established usage of the name Conops testaceus
Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Myopa testacea) by setting aside all previous type fixations
and designating a neotype was received from D.K. Clements (Cardiff, U_K.), J.-H.
Stuke (Leer, Germany) and P.J. Chandler (Melksham, Wiltshire, U.K.) on 21 July
2008. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 65: 294-299 (December
2008). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commis-
sion’s website. No comments were received on this case.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 December 2009 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 65: 297. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
2010 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 21: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Halliday,
Harvey, Kottelat, Lamas, Lim, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Papp, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol,
Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou.
Negative votes — 6: Alonso-Zarazaga, Grygier, Kojima, Krell, Kullander and
Patterson.
Pyle was on leave of absence.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 87
Although he voted FOR, Grygier said he can not accept the arguments in
paragraph 15 on selection of a neotype from north-western Europe when Linnaeus
described the species from ‘Europa australis’. Grygier said the new type locality will
be too far away from the old, and naming of a neotype from southern Europe should
await the resolution of the taxonomic situation there. Harvey, voting FOR, pointed
out that the specific epithet in this application should be corrected to Conops
testaceus. Kottelat said he voted FOR because of the reported uncertainties as to
whether or not the ‘lectotype’ was effectively part of the type series. Winston also
voted FOR as she felt the proposals could be justified in terms of usage and stability,
but expressed concern that the argument seemed very subjective.
Voting AGAINST, Alonso-Zarazaga said that this case had multiple flaws,
starting with the name Conops testacea, which should have been spelled Conops
testaceus. He went on to say that, having worked also on Linnaeus’s collection, he
understood that it might be difficult to accept that a supposed Linnaean type
specimen did not match one’s expectations but, in his opinion, the authors did not
show enough evidence of the type specimen of C. testaceus being false. Usually these
were the specimens Linnaeus studied. He observed that there was no alternative name
available for the species with the wholly black thorax, even if there were synonymous
names whose types should have been studied. Alonso-Zarazaga stated that the
options were the authors’ or none. He went on to add that since the systematics of
the group is unclear according to the authors, a vote now on a name would result in
unpredictable consequences at the very least. Voting AGAINST, Kojima felt that
neither the ‘exceptional need’ required for designation of a neotype by Article 75.3
nor the ‘lack of accord’ between the existing name-bearing type and the prevailing
usage of names required by Article 75.6 were demonstrated in this Case; he said that
the concept of the species known as Conops testaceus had been well established and
thus there was no exceptional need to designate a neotype and that though the
authors were not certain whether Thompson’s (1997) lectotype designation was valid,
Thompson’s interpretation had not been accepted by the dipterist community. He
suggested that in order to stabilise the name Conops testacea it would be sufficient for
the authors to ask the Commission to use its plenary power to rule that the sole
specimen standing under the name Conops testaceus in the Linnaean collection was
not a syntype. Krell, voting AGAINST, said the intent of the authors was certainly
useful to maintain stability of usage of Myopa testacea. However, the designation
of a neotype was not sufficiently justified. He felt it was clear from the original
description that the specimen Linnaeus referred to came from Peder/Peter Ascanius.
To designate a neotype, Krell would have liked to see a statement that no Ascanius
material could be traced, or that Ascanius’s collection was destroyed. Krell said
that although he hadn’t received Ascanius’s (1921), biography (Entomologiske
Meddelelser, 15(1): 35-37), Hylleberg (2009, Steenstrupia, 31 (1): 1-101) indicates
that Ascanius was affiliated with a natural history collection, the Natural- og
Husholdnings-Cabinettet (The Naturalia and MHousekeeping Cabinet) at
Charlottenborg. According to the Danish Natural History Museum (http://zoologi.
snm.ku.dk/english/Om_Zoologisk_Museum/History/Museets_historie/), in 1772 the
Cabinet was transferred to the university in Copenhagen. Krell thus concluded
he would not accept the neotypification without having checked whether any of
Ascanius’s material was in Copenhagen and would like to see a statement that there
88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
was no suitable specimen to select as a neotype in all of Linnaeus’s collections
(including Uppsala).
Original reference
The following is the original reference to the name placed on the Official List by the
ruling given in the present Opinion:
testaceus, Conops, Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2. Salvii, Holmiae,
p. 1006 [spelling emended from Conops testacea].
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 89
OPINION 2269 (Case 3487)
Megalosaurus crenatissimus Depéret, 1896 (currently Majungasaurus
crenatissimus; Dinosauria, Theropoda): designation of a neotype
Abstract. The prevailing usage and concept of the species Megalosaurus crenatissimus
Depéret, 1896 (currently Majungasaurus crenatissimus) has been conserved by
replacement of the existing, non-diagnostic holotype with a neotype.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Archosauria; Dinosauria; Theropoda;
ABELISAURIDAE; Majungasaurus; Megalosaurus; Megalosaurus crenatissimus;
Madagascar; Cretaceous.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that all previous type fixations
for the nominal species crenatissimus Depéret, 1896, as published in the
binomen Megalosaurus crenatissimus, are hereby set aside and the specimen
MNHN.MAJ 1 (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) is hereby
designated as the neotype.
(2) The name Majungasaurus Lavocat, 1955 (gender: masculine), type species by
original designation Megalosaurus crenatissimus Depéret, 1896, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name crenatissimus Depéret, 1896, as published in the binomen Megalo-
saurus crenatissimus and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above
(specific name of the type species of Majungasaurus Lavocat, 1955), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3487
An application to conserve the prevailing usage and concept of the species Megalo-
saurus crenatissimus Depéret, 1896 (currently Majungasaurus crenatissimus) by
replacing the existing, non-diagnostic holotype with a neotype was received from
Matthew T. Carrano (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, U.S.A.), David W.
Krause (Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, U.S.A.), Patrick M. O’Connor
(Ohio University, Athens, OH, U.S.A.) and Scott D. Sampson (University of Utah,
Salt Lake City, UT, U.S.A.) on 4 February 2009. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 66: 261-264 (September 2009). The title, abstract and keywords of
the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on
this case.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 66: 263. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
2010 the votes were as follows:
90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Affirmative votes — 25: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier,
Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Minelli, Pape,
Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou.
Negative votes — 0.
Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and Pyle were on leave of absence.
Voting FOR, Kojima felt there was confusion in the usage of the term ‘holotype’
in the title and paragraph 10. In paragraph 1, the authors correctly referred to the
specimens as “‘name-bearing type specimens’. As the holotype was not designated in
the original publication these specimens were syntypes and no holotype of Megalo-
saurus crenatissimus Depéret, 1896 was ever present unless the original isolated and
fragmentary fossil specimens came from a single individual. Lamas also voted FOR
and noted that both in the title and some parts of the text of the application the
authors referred (wrongly) to a ‘holotype’ of Megalosaurus crenatissimus (e.g. in
paragraph 10). In fact, that name was based on a type series consisting of ‘isolated
and fragmentary fossils’, not upon a single specimen. Nevertheless, Lamas supported
the petition for designation of a neotype under the Commission’s plenary power.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the
ruling given in the present Opinion:
crenatissimus, Megalosaurus, Depéret, 1896, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, (3)24:
188.
Majungasaurus Lavocat, 1955, Bulletin du’ Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris,
(2)27(3):.259.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 1)
OPINION 2270 (Case 3440)
Atrichornis Stejneger, 1885 (Aves, ATRICHORNITHIDAE): generic name
conserved
Abstract. The Commission has conserved the current usage of the widely used generic
name Atrichornis Stejneger, 1885, which has been in universal use as a valid generic
name for almost 90 years, for the Australian scrub-birds (ATRICHORNITHIDAE), by
suppression of the name Atricha Gould, 1844, which was used in the incorrect
subsequent spelling Atrichia for the scrub-birds into the first decade or so of the 20th
century.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; ATRICHORNITHIDAE; Atrichornis; Atricha;
Atrichia; Atrichornis rufescens; scrub-birds; Australia.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the generic name Atricha
Gould, [January] 1844 is suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Atrichornis Stejneger, 1885 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Atrichia rufescens Ramsay, 1866, is hereby placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name rufescens Ramsay, 1866, as published in the binomen Atrichia
rufescens (specific name of the type species of Atrichornis Stejneger, 1885), is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The name Atricha Gould, [January] 1844, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology.
History of Case 3440
An application to conserve the generic name Africhornis Stejneger, 1885, which has
been in universal use as a valid generic name for almost 90 years for the Australian
scrub-birds (ATRICHORNITHIDAE), by suppression under Article 23.9.3 of the name
Atricha Gould, 1844, which was used in the incorrect subsequent spelling Atrichia for
the scrub-birds into the first decade or so of the 20th century, was received from
Richard Schodde (Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra, Australia) and
Walter J. Bock (Columbia University, New York, NY, U.S.A.) on 19 April 2007. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 65: 42-45 (March 2008). The title,
abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No
comments were received on this case.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 March 2009 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 65: 44. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 2009
the votes were as follows:
92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Affirmative votes — 18: Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday,
Kottelat, Krell, Lamas, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol
and Zhang.
Negative votes — 3: Alonso-Zarazaga, Kullander and Lim.
Pyle was on leave of absence.
Alonso-Zarazaga, voting AGAINST, said he considered the application to start
from a faulty point: that The Athenaeum was a published work in the sense of the
Code, because it failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8.1.1: it must be
issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record. The
Athenaeum was a newspaper and did not have this as its main purpose. The Oxford
Universal Dictionary Illustrated defines newspaper as ‘a printed, now usually daily or
weekly, publication containing news, advertisements, literary matter, and other items
of public interest’. Nothing indicated that newspapers were published for scientific
record of any kind, which was common sense. If the Commission failed to recognise
this, anything printed would become ‘scientific record’ and there were thousands of
newspapers in all world languages. Many of these might carry names and descrip-
tions in advance of their publication in scientific academic’) journals or books,
especially in the case of ‘flagship’ or charismatic animals, like dinosaurs.’ Ng, voting
FOR, agreed that the genus name in question for the scrub-birds was worthy of
conservation. Changing the status quo helped no one in these circumstances and
might affect conservation regimes and research.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes
by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Atrichornis Steyneger, 1885, Order XVIII. Passeres. Pp. 458-547 in Kingsley, J.S. (Ed.), The
Standard Natural History, vol. 4, p. 462.
rufescens, Atrichia, Ramsay, 1866, The Clarence and Richmond Examiner, vol. 7, n. 362, p. 2,
col. 4.
Atricha Gould, [January] 1844, The Athenaeum, 848: 90.
Contents — continued
OPINION 2268 (Case 3473). Conops testaceus Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Myopa
testacea; Insecta, Diptera): specific name conserved by iia it of a
neotype. ..
OPINION 2269 or 3487). ee ee crenatissimus : Pepérer, 1896 aaetontis
Majungasaurus_ crenatissimus; Dinosauria, Theropoda): designation of a
neotype. . ‘
OPINION 2270 (Case 3440). detihered » Steneger, | 1885 5 (Aves, ATRICHORNITHIDAE):
generic name conserved ;
86
89
91
eS
DREN
Eeponeont
os
Rae
eas
aout es
Bacup nueatea ae me
Le
See
Line
oS
sie
etcane
INNEIMOTI TA
ne
peer anies
es
SMITHSONIAN INSTIT
ees
oe
ee
eee
:
Be
ee
eee ui gesuacanssents
oe oe
eee oe .
88
a
Bes
ae
is
porns
a5
oe
oa
_
See ese
ee
:
:
if OE
Sean
Poniiame
ei
See
AS es See:
ee ena Se a &
SA — Se oo
Se OR :
Pees
:
Sea onan
oy _
ean
once
a
Roku
CER
ee
ances
ees
Boe
a
Re
oo
oe
SOEUR
fon
Seasons
Spoioucunaes
So
ae ue
oe
.
see
es
UTION LIBRARIES
ks
8
—
sae
.
ee
a
oe
Se
BusoneeS
ee
=
=
Rees
eens
Sin
ee:
RRS
Ce
es
a
oe
A Sas
eae
es
oe
. .
—
S
oe
Sea
Seb
ee
COMERS
_
ase
:
Volume 68, Part 2,30 June 2011, pp. 93-158 : ISSN 0007-5167
The Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature
The Official Periodical
of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a registered charity
(no. 211944) based in the U.K. The annual subscription for 2011 is £210 or US$360 or €295,
postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £105 or
US$180 or €145. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to:
The Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. +44 207 942 5653; e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk)
Electronic communication is preferred. Manuscripts sent by post should include a digital
copy of the text and figures.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Officers
President Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands)
Vice-President Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S. A.)
Executive Secretary Dr E. Michel (U.K.)
Councillors indicated below with *
Members
Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga* Prof. S. Lim (Malaysia; Parasitology)
(Spain; Coleoptera) Prof. A. Minelli Wtaly; Myriapoda)
Dr A. Ballerio U/taly; Coleoptera) Prof. P. K. L. Ng (Singapore;
Dr N. G. Bogutskaya (Russia; Ichthyology) Crustacea, Ichthyology)
Prof. P. Bouchet* (France; Mollusca) Dr T. Pape (Denmark; Diptera)
Prof. D. J. Brothers Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera)
(South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof. D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista)
Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S.A.; Cnidaria) Dr R. Pyle* (U.S. A.; Ichthyology)
Dr M. J. Grygier (Japan; Crustacea) Dr G. Rosenberg* (U.S. A.; Mollusca)
Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof. P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera)
Dr M. S. Harvey (Australia; Arachnida) Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata)
Prof. J. Kojima (Japan; Hymenoptera) Dr J. E. Winston (U.S. A.; Bryozoa)
Dr M. Kottelat (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr D. Yanega (U.S.A.; Entomology)
Dr F.-T. Krell (U.S.A.; Coleoptera) Dr Z.-Q. Zhang (New Zealand; Acari)
Dr S. O. Kullander (Sweden; Ichthyology) Prof. H. Zhou (China; Coleoptera)
Prof. Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera)
Secretariat
Dr E. Michel (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor-in-Chief)
Dr S. Nikolaeva (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Editor)
S. Tracey (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Administrator)
N. Dale-Skey Papilloud M.Sc. (Bulletin Zoologist)
E. W. Baker (Webmaster and Development Officer)
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
Dr M. Dixon (Chairman)
C. Laws (Treasurer and Managing Director)
Abstracts of Applications and Opinions, Comments in full and details of the names published
in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology are posted on the
Commission’s website (http://iczn.org)
Cover image: Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa (Linnaeus, 1758), the European mole cricket (Latin:
gryllus — cricket, talpa — mole, from its fossorial limbs, fine hairs and subterranean habit).
Widespread in the Western Palaearctic region and introduced into parts of the U.S.A. this
insect can be an agricultural pest in significant numbers, although in the U.K. it is extremely
rare and subject to a U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan (report sightings to g.beccaloni@
nhm.ac.uk). Detail from plate 456 of British Entomology: Original Drawings, vol. 10, by John
Curtis (1862) (© Natural History Museum, London).
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2011
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 93
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 68, part 2 (pp. 93-158) 30 June 2011
Notices
(1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission
should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the
front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the
Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two
page form in each volume and available online (at http://iczn.org/content/guidelines-
case-preparation) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors
for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as
opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applica-
tions and, as far as it can, check the main nomenclatural references in applications.
Correspondence should be sent by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible.
(2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been
published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be
submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or
against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible.
Comments may be edited (see instructions for submission of comments at
http://iczn.org/content/instructions-comments).
(3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the
Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the
Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more
about the list at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list.
(4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on
nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal
with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes
should be sent to the Executive Secretary.
New applications to the Commission
The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the
Bulletin (volume 68, part 1, 31 March 2011) went to press. Under Article 82 of
the Code, the existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the
Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published.
CASE 3555: CHILODONTIDAE Macalister, 1876 (Ciliophora), CHILODINAE Eigen-
mann, 1910 (Pisces, Characiformes) and CHILODONTINAE Wenz, 1938 (Mollusca,
Gastropoda): proposed resolution of homonymy between family-group names. D.G.
Herbert & P. Bouchet.
CASE 3556: Protoretepora de Koninck, 1878 (Bryozoa, Fenestrata): proposed
designation of Protoretepora crockfordae Wyse Jackson, Reid & McKinney, 2011 as
the type species. P.N. Wyse Jackson, C.M. Reid & F.K. McKinney.
94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
CASE 3557: Zanthomiza Swainson, 1837 and Gliciphila Swainson, 1837 (Aves,
Passeriformes): proposed conservation of original spellings. S.M.S. Gregory, W.E.
Boles & L. Christidis.
CASE 3558: Pleurotoma scabriusculum Brugnone, 1862 (currently Mangelia scabri-
uscula; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. D. Scarponi, A.
Ceregato & J.K. Tucker.
CASE 3559: Meliboeus violaceus Kiesenwetter, 1857 (Insecta, Coleoptera): pro-
posed precedence. H. Mile.
CASE 3560: Plateosaurus Meyer, 1837 (Dinosauria, Sauropodomorpha): proposed
conservation of usage by designation of a neotype for its type species Plateosaurus
engelhardti Meyer, 1837. P.M. Galton.
CASE 3561: Anchisaurus Marsh, 1885 (Dinosauria, Sauropodomorpha): proposed
conservation of usage by designation of a neotype for its type species Megadactylus
polyzelus Hitchcock, 1865. P.M. Galton.
CASE 3562: Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 (Dinosauria,
Theropoda, Aves): proposed correction to Opinion 607. J. Mlikovsky
CASE 3563: Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948 (Primates, LEMURIDAE): proposed
conservation of the generic name. J. Zijlstra, C. Groves & A. Dunkel.
CASE 3564: Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera & Bartels, 2010 (Aves, GRALLARIIDAE):
proposed confirmation of unavailability. S. Claramunt.
CASE 3565: Aphaenops Bonvouloir, 1862 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed con-
servation of spelling of instead of Aphoenops. A. Faille, A. Casale, T.C. Barr, Jr., &
A. Vigna Taglianti.
CASE 3566: Tropidolaemus Wagler, 1830 and Cophias wagleri H. Boie in Schlegel,
1826 (currently Tropidolaemus wagleri) (Reptilia, Serpentes, VIPERIDAE): proposed
conservation. J.M. Savage.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 95
Contributions to the Discussion on Electronic Publication VII
Comment on the proposed amendment to the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature
Lee Namba
Enterprise Architect, ATOS Origin, Paris, France
(e-mail: lee namba@atosorigin.com)
with Francisco Welter-Schultes, BHL-Europe, as intermediary
As a professional archivist working at the forefront of digital information architec-
ture for ATOS Origin (an international IT company) I was interested in the archiving
challenge posed by the ICZN’s proposed amendment allowing e-only publication. It
has been explained by members of the BHL/BHL-Europe team (for which I am
working on digital archiving issues) that the biological community wishes taxonomic
publications to remain accessible and in their original format on the timescale of
hundreds of years.
I see only two proven technologies that allow preservation of original information
over a long time: paper and stone. All other media have not been proven to last long.
Stone is clearly problematic because little information can be preserved and must be
reduced to text. Short law texts can be carved in stone. Paper is more powerful, but
it has shortcomings having to do with its sensitivity to fire and water. A proven
strategy to overcome this problem has been the production of multiple identical
copies in combination with experienced archival systems paid for by public and
private institutions to preserve and protect these copies against vandalism and
theft.
In the electronic age — which effectively began in the 1960s — no such archival
systems have yet been successfully installed. In fact there are bad experiences where
important information was lost. Sometimes the data as such were not lost, but the
ability to read (or decode) them no longer exists. Without conserved knowledge on
file formats and without knowing and having the programs and versions that were
once able to read these files, the electronic information contained will remain
inaccessible. An example from NASA’s Mars Lander records is well-known (e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Dark_Age); despite its excellent funding, NASA
lost key information due to archiving issues.
In 2001/2002 NASA and others defined a strategy for long-term archiving of
electronic information called the Open Archival Information System (OAIS), but this
is only a ‘functional standard’ to build such a system. It involves changes of storage
media and formats, running many times over 1000s of years. Many questions remain
open for installing such systems; among these are funding sources for transfer
processes to update media systems and formats, technologies for copying software
and related issues. From a cost perspective, storing information digitally will be
expensive since it will be necessary to upgrade the systems technology every
generation or so.
ATOS Origin has been asked to help with long-term archival systems for an
increasing number of private companies and public institutions that are beginning to
realise that they are losing their files. This has often to do with dictated technology
96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
changes or technologies no longer being supported by IBM and other global players
in this market.
For example, a major national library has had its original archiving contract no
longer supported by the proprietary software provider, so they are forced to change
the system. Electronic medical and tax files do not need to be archived for such long
durations, and consequently no appropriate strategies have been developed and
approved for this kind of public purpose.
For an archival system as required by the nomenclatural community, which
involves access to originally deposited and unmodified information in time spans of
several centuries, I can only recommend using a system that works with multiple
copies printed on paper, and depositing sufficient numbers of such copies in public
library institutions. Electronic files can be repeatedly derived from paper copies, in
whatever format required by the time and the user’s needs.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 97
Case 3518
Cornu Born, 1778 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Pulmonata, HELICIDAE):
request for a ruling on the availability of the generic name
Robert H. Cowie
Center for Conservation Research and Training, Pacific Biosciences Research
Center, University of Hawaii, 3050 Maile Way, Gilmore 408, Honolulu,
Hawaii 96822, U.S.A. (e-mail: cowie@hawaii.edu)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 78.2.3 and 80.2.1 of the
Code, is to suggest a possible interpretation of Article 1.3.2 in relation to the
availability of the generic name Cornu Born, 1778 for a genus of land snails (family
HELICIDAE). There has been longstanding confusion regarding the correct generic
combination for the well-known, common and widely introduced land snail orig-
inally described as Helix aspersa Miller, 1774, that is, whether it should be placed in
Cornu Born, 1778, Cantareus Risso, 1826 or Cryptomphalus Charpentier, 1837. The
confusion has arisen primarily because of differing interpretations of Article 1.3.2 in
relation to the original proposal of the genus-group name Cornu Born, 1778 for the
species Cornu copiae Born, 1778, which was based on a teratological specimen of
Helix aspersa Miller, 1774. It is proposed that the wording of Article 1.3.2 be
interpreted to confirm the availability of Cornu Born, 1778.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; Gastropoda; Pulmonata; HELICIDAE;
Helix; Cantareus; Cornu; Cryptomphalus; Cornu copiae; Helix aperta; Helix aspersa;
brown garden snail; Europe; introduced species.
1. The well-known, common and widely introduced Western European land snail
species (the brown garden snail, common garden snail or simply the garden snail)
that has long been known as Helix aspersa Miller, 1774 (p. 59) (e.g. Pilsbry, 1894,
p. 311; Kerney & Cameron, 1979, p. 205) is an ecologically important species, with
established introductions in many regions of the world (Barker, 1999, p. 62; Cowie,
2001, p. 125; Roth & Sadeghian, 2003, p. 35; Herbert, 2010, p. 50; Stanisic et al.,
2010, p. 520). It is a commercially important species in France and Belgium, and to
a lesser extent in the rest of Europe and North Africa, in French known as the
‘escargot petit-gris’ (e.g. Bonnet et al., 1990; Jess & Marks, 1995; Dupont-Nivet et al.,
2000; Herbert & Kilburn, 2004). There is therefore a considerable body of scientific
and non-scientific literature on this species, yet there is much recent and continuing
confusion and hence lack of stability regarding its correct generic placement. The
name Helix aspersa Miller, 1774 is on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
(Opinion 336, Opinions and Declarations, 10: 77-108, March 1955). While there
is almost general agreement that it should not be retained in Helix Linnaeus,
1758, there is much disagreement about its correct placement. It has been placed by
various modern authors in the genera Cornu Born, 1778 (e.g. Falkner et al., 2001,
p. 65; Anderson, 2005, p. 627; Cowie et al., 2008, p. 270; Ligaszewski et al., 2009,
98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
p. 173; Guiller & Madec, 2010, p. 1; Stanisic et al., 2010, p. 520), Cryptomphalus
Charpentier, 1837 (e.g. Paniagua & Vazquez, 1976, p. 617; Robinson, 1999, p. 419;
Bojat et al., 2001, p. 155; Kiss & Magnin, 2003, p. 53; Brieva et al., 2008, p. 15) and
Cantareus Risso, 1826 (e.g. Barker, 1999, p. 62; Koene & Schulenburg, 2005, p. 2;
Manganelli et al., 2005, p. 504; Wade et al., 2006, p. 598, 2007, p. 412; Ansart et al.,
2007, p. 71). Some authors have accepted the availability and validity of these
genus-group names but as subgenera of He/ix Linnaeus, 1758. For example, Waldén
(1976, p. 24) and Roth & Sadeghian (2003, p. 35) placed H. aspersa in Helix subgenus
Cornu, while Zilch (1960, p. 722) and Giusti (1969, p. 86, 1977, p. 126) placed it in
Helix subgenus Cryptomphalus, and Zilch (1960, p. 723), Giusti (1969, p. 88) and
Roth & Sadeghian (2003, p. 35) placed the related Helix aperta Born, 1778 in Helix
subgenus Cantareus. Whether or not any of these three genus-group names are
synonyms of each other has also been the subject of much confusion. Some authors,
either unable or unwilling to decide on the correct placement of aspersa, have left it
in Helix (e.g. Cowie, 1997, p. 20; Rogers & Chase, 2002, p. 290; Herbert & Kilburn,
2004, p. 275; Cameron et al., 2006, pp. 19-20). While there has been discussion of this
issue (e.g. Giusti et al., 1996, pp. 490-491; Barker, 1999, pp. 67-68; Gerber, 2000,
p. 44; Roth & Sadeghian, 2003, p. 35; Anderson, 2005, p. 627; Herbert, 2010, p. 52)
and the consensus seems to lean towards accepting the availability and validity of
Cornu and the placement of aspersa in Cornu, no definitive statement has been
formally published and different treatments continue to appear in publications. The
purpose of this application is formally to resolve this nomenclatural confusion, which
stems essentially from the different views on the availability of the genus-group name
Cornu Born, 1778. These differing views reflect the difficulty of interpreting Article
E3.2.01 the Code.
2. The type species of Helix Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 768) is Helix pomatia Linnaeus,
1758 (p. 771), by subsequent designation of Montfort (1810, p. 231) (see Melville &
Smith, 1987, p. 103). It has been appreciated long ago that this species and Helix
aspersa Miller, 1774 are quite different, e.g. by Charpentier (1837, pp. 5—6) and
Moquin-Tandon (1855, pp. 174, 179), who both placed them in different subgenera
of Helix. And there is now general agreement that they are sufficiently different to
indeed warrant placement in different genus-group taxa (e.g. Waldén, 1976, p. 24;
Giusti et al., 1996, pp. 490, 497; Barker, 1999, p. 67; Robinson, 1999, pp. 419, 437;
Falkner et al., 2001, p. 65; Anderson, 2005, p. 613; Koene & Schulenburg, 2005,
p. 5; Manganelli et al., 2005, pp. 504-505; Ligaszewski et al., 2009, p. 173; Herbert,
2OLOMp M62);
3. The type species of Cornu Born, 1778 (p. 371) is Cornu copiae Born, 1778
(p. 371), by monotypy. Cornu copiae was re-described and illustrated by Born (1780,
p. 362, pl. 13, figs. 10, 11), with an additional text illustration, in fact the same one
that appeared, without being referred to in the text, on the last page of the 1778
publication. It is based on a scalariform (i.e. teratological) specimen of aspersa
Miiller, 1774, on which there has been no disagreement. Some authors have
considered copiae and Cornu unavailable based on their interpretation of Article 1.3.2
of the Code, which states “Excluded from the provisions of the Code are names
proposed ... for teratological specimens as such’ (e.g. Giusti et al., 1996, p. 491;
Barker, 1999, p. 68). Others have argued that this means ‘in distinction from normal
specimens of the same species’ (Roth & Sadeghian, 2003, p. 60), and view Born’s
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 99
name as having been introduced for what he considered a valid and distinct species,
rather than explicitly for a teratological specimen of an already valid species; in which
case copiae and Cornu are available names (e.g. Gerber, 2000, p. 44). The words ‘as
such’, and their explanation in the Glossary of the Code as meaning “Being strictly
what has been cited’, are the source of the confusion. Shileyko (2006, p. 1817) treated
Cornu as a nomen oblitum, with the subsequently published Cryptomphalus as the
valid name. However, Shileyko’s action was inappropriate under Article 23.9.1.1 of
the Code, as Cornu had been used as a valid name after 1899 (e.g. citations above),
and his action did not fully comply with Article 23.9.2. Born clearly intended Cornu
as a genus name, as it appeared as a heading in the same format as his other genus
headings. His use of copiae as the species name, perhaps intended to be witty in
combination with the genus name, is probably a reflection of the ‘cornu copiae’ (two
words) in its original meaning derived from Greek mythology, the ‘horn of plenty’
(cornu, horn; copiae, genitive of copia, plenty), a spiralled goat’s horn filled with fruit
and grain (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2010), which the scalariform shell clearly
resembles. Modern English usage is ‘cornucopia’ as a single word, generally meaning
a great abundance of something, although, especially in North America, it also
means a hollow, horn-shaped wicker basket filled with various kinds of festive fruit
and other produce.
4. Gmelin (1791, p. 3745) listed Born’s name as the species epithet (not a
species-genus combination) ‘Cornu copiae’ in the marine polychaete genus Serpula
Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 1264), clearly incorrectly. Subsequently, Cornu copiae was ignored
by most major nineteenth century authors (e.g. Férussac, 1821-1822; Charpentier,
1837; Anton, 1839, p. 33; Pfeiffer, 1853; Reeve, 1854; Moquin-Tandon, 1855; Locard,
1880; Tryon, 1888; Pilsbry, 1894), with some exceptions. Deshayes (1832, p. 237)
noted a monstrous variety of Helix aspersa described as ‘cornu-formi’ without
reference to Born, and subsequently (Deshayes, 1838, p. 33) cited Born’s illustration,
but without giving the name itself, in the synonymy of Helix aspersa. Beck (1838,
p. 40) listed ‘Cornucopia’, attributed to Born and also citing Gmelin, in the synonymy
of aspersa (in error as ‘adspersa’) as a monstrous form with separated whorls
(‘monstrosa anfractibus dissolutis’). Gray (1847, p. 171) listed “Cornucopia, Born’ as a
genus name and a synonym of “Helix Risso, 1826’, with type species Helix ‘adspersa’,
presumably again in error for aspersa. Forbes & Hanley (1853, p. 45), cited Born’s
work in the synonymy of aspersa, under ‘“Monstrosities’, but did not list the actual
name. Taylor (1910, p. 268, fig. 325) listed it as ‘Monst. cornucopiae Gmelin’, under
aspersa, but with ‘Cornu copiae Born’, as the earliest entry in the synonymy. Germain
(1930, pp. 182-189) made no mention of it. While this survey of the literature has not
been exhaustive, Taylor’s treatment may be the first to approach formal and correct
synonymisation of the genus-species combination Cornu copiae as a synonym of
Helix aspersa by including Born’s name correctly as a genus-species combination.
Nonetheless, all these various treatments of Born’s names (except Gmelin), together
as one word as either a genus-group synonym of Helix or a species-group synonym
of aspersa, or by implication by citing Born’s work, clearly intended that Cornu
copiae Born be treated as a monstrous form and therefore a junior synonym of
aspersa. Modern authors (see the preceding paragraph) agree with this interpretation.
However, for much of the twentieth century, malacologists rarely referred to Cornu,
with the exception of Pilsbry (1948, p. 1091), who acknowledged it as a senior
100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
synonym of Cryptomphalus (as a subgenus of Helix) and synonymised Cornu copiae
Born, 1778 with Helix aspersa Miller, 1774. Pilsbry’s recognition of Cornu was
ignored, possibly because it was buried in the ‘Additions and Corrections’ of his
work, until Waldén (1976, pp. 24-25) again acknowledged the availability of Cornu
and set the scene for the subsequent discussions, referred to above, that have led to
the current position of the availability of Cornu needing to be clarified.
5. The type species of Cantareus Risso, 1826 (p. 64) is Helix naticoides Draparnaud,
1801 (p. 78), a subjective junior synonym of Helix aperta Born, 1778 (p. 399) (e.g.
Forbes & Hanley, 1853, p. 43; Pilsbry, 1889, p. 255, Woodward, 1917, p. 220; Zilch,
1960, p. 723), by monotypy.
6. The type species of Cryptomphalus Charpentier, 1837 (p. 5) is Helix aspersa
Muller, 1774 (p. 59), by subsequent designation of Pilsbry (1889, p. 235). Hence, if
Cornu is considered available, with type species Cornu copiae (= Helix aspersa),
Cryptomphalus is a junior subjective synonym of Cornu, subjective because it depends
on the judgment, which is confirmed in the literature, of copiae and aspersa being
synonyms (see above). In addition, with Cornu considered available, if aperta and
aspersa are considered congeneric, then Cantareus (type species Helix naticoides
(= Helix aperta, see above)) also becomes a junior subjective synonym of Cornu.
7. Held (1837, p. 910) placed Helix aspersa Miller, 1774 in combination with an
additional genus-group name, his new name Coenatoria Held, 1837. The type species
of Coenatoria is Helix pomatia Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation of
Herrmannsen (1847, p. 269), which thereby renders Coenatoria a junior objective
synonym of Helix Linnaeus, 1758. Subsequently, Shileyko (2006, p. 1817) invalidly
designated aspersa as the type species of Coenatoria and placed Coenatoria with
Cornu in the synonymy of Cryptomphalus. Coenatoria has not been mentioned in the
controversy over the correct generic placement of aspersa.
8. While the relationship of aperta and aspersa is a taxonomic rather than a
nomenclatural issue and thus not under the jurisdiction of the Commission, the
correct interpretation of Article 1.3.2 of the Code is a purely nomenclatural issue.
This is the underlying issue in the present case. The correct interpretation seems to be
that Cornu copiae Born, 1778 is available despite being based on a teratological
specimen, since the description did not refer to the specimen as teratological ‘as such’,
that is, it did not explicitly acknowledge it as an aberrant or monstrous specimen of
a known species, and there is no explicit indication that it was not intended as a
genuine description of a new species. Hence, Helix aspersa Miiller, 1774, as the
subjective senior synonym of the type species of Cornu, Cornu copiae Born, 1778,
should be placed in combination with Cornu, the oldest available genus-group name,
if Helix Linnaeus, 1758 is considered inappropriate.
9. Considering the importance of stable use of the name of this snail the
Commission is requested, in accordance with Articles 78.2.3 and 80.2.1, to use its
specific power to interpret the provisions of Article 1.3.2 of the Code and to rule on
the availability of the name Cornu copiae Born, 1778.
10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to rule that the name copiae Born, 1778, as published in the binomen Cornu
copiae, is not unavailable by reason of being based on a teratological specimen,
as it was not explicitly described as such, under Article 1.3.2 of the Code;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 101
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Cornu
Born, 1778 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy Cornu copiae Born,
1778, with the endorsement that it is not unavailable by reason of being based
on a teratological specimen, as ruled in (1) above;
(3) to amend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the
name aspersa Miller, 1774, as published in the binomen Helix aspersa to
record that this is the valid name of the type species of Cornu Born, 1778 (a
senior subjective synonym of copiae Born, 1778, as published in the binomen
Cornu copiae).
Acknowledgements
I thank Neal Evenhuis and especially Philippe Bouchet for discussion, assistance with
literature and comments on a draft, Barry Roth for discussion, and Ruud Bank,
Jochen Gerber and Patrick Schembri for assistance with literature.
References
Anonymous. 2010. Cornucopia. Jn Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved December 15, 2010,
from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/
13808 1/cornucopia
Anderson, R. 2005. An annotated list of the non-marine Mollusca of Britain and Ireland.
Journal of Conchology, 38(6): 607-637.
Ansart, A., Madec, L. & Vernon, P. 2007. Supercooling ability is surprisingly invariable in eggs
of the land snail Cantareus aspersus. Cryobiology, 54: 71-76.
Anton, H.E. 1838. Verzeichniss der Conchylien welche sich in der Sammlung von Hermann
Eduard Anton befinden. xvi, 110 pp. Eduard Anton, Halle.
Barker, G.M. 1999. Naturalised terrestrial Stylommatophora (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Fauna
of New Zealand 38. 254 pp. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Beck, H. 1837-1838. Index Molluscorum praesentis aevi musei principis augustissimi Christiani
Frederici. Fasciculus primus et secundus. Mollusca gastraepoda pulmonata. 124 pp.
[Published by the author], Hafnia [= Copenhagen].
Bojat, N.C., Sauder, U. & Haase, M. 2001. The spermathecal epithelium, sperm and
their interactions in the hermaphroditic land snail Arianta arbustorum (Pulmonata,
Stylommatophora). Zoomorphology, 120: 149-157.
Bonnet, J.-C., Aupinel, P. & Vrillon, J.-L. 1990. L’escargot Helix aspersa: biologie-élevage.
123 pp. Institut national de la recherche agronomique, Paris.
Born, I. von. 1778. Index rerum naturalium Musei Caesarei Vindobonensis. Pars I“ Testacea.
Verzeichnifb der natiirlichen Seltenheiten des k. k. Naturalien Cabinets zu Wien. Erster
Theil. Schalthiere. x\ii, 458, [82] pp., 1 pl. J.P. Kraus, Vindobonae [= Vienna].
Born, I. von. 1780. Testacea Musei Cesarei Vindobonensis, quae jussu Marie Theresie Auguste
disposuit et descripsit Ignatius a Born, Equ. xxxvi, 442, [18] pp., 18 pls. J.P. Kraus,
Vindobonae [= Vienna].
Brieva, A., Philips, N., Tejedor, R., Guerrero, A., Pivel, J.P., Alonso-Lebrero, J.L. & Gonzalez,
S. 2008. Molecular basis for the regenerative properties of a secretion of the mollusk
Cryptomphalus aspersa. Skin Pharmacology and Physiology, 21: 15-22.
Cameron, R.A.D., da Cunha, R.M.T. & Frias Martins, A.M. 2007. Chance and necessity:
land-snail faunas of SAo Miguel, Azores, compared with those of Madeira. Journal of
Molluscan Studies, 73: 11-21.
Charpentier, J. de. 1837. Catalogue des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la Suisse.
Formant la seconde partie de la faune Helvétique. Neue Denkschriften der Allgemeinen
Schweizerischen Gesellschaft fiir die Gesammten Naturwissenschaften, 1(2): 1-28, pls. 1-2.
Cowie, R.H. 1997. Catalog and bibliography of the nonindigenous nonmarine snails and slugs
of the Hawaiian Islands. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, 50: 1-66.
102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
Cowie, R.H. 2001. Invertebrate invasions on Pacific islands and the replacement of unique
native faunas: a synthesis of the land and freshwater snails. Biological Invasions, 3:
119-136.
Cowie, R.H., Hayes, K.A., Tran, C.T. & Meyer, W.M., III. 2008. The horticultural industry as
a vector of alien snails and slugs: widespread invasions in Hawaii. International Journal of
Pest Management, 54: 267-276.
Deshayes, G.P. 1830-1832, Encyclopédie méthodique. Histoire naturelle des vers. Tome second.
vil, 256, 594 pp. Agasse, Paris.
Deshayes, G.P. 1838, Tome huiti¢me. Mollusques. Pp. 1-660 in Deshayes, G.P. & Milne
Edwards, H., Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres ... Deuxiéme édition. Revue et
augmentée de notes présentant les faits nouveaux dont la science s’est enrichie jusqu’a ce
jour. J.B. Bailliére, Paris.
Draparnaud, J. [1801]. Tableau des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France. 116 pp.
Renaud, Montpellier; Bossange, Masson & Besson, Paris.
Dupont-Nivet, M., Coste, V., Coinon, P., Bonnet, J.-C. & Blanc, J.-M. 2000. Rearing density
effect on the production performance of the edible snail Helix aspersa Miller in indoor
rearing. Animal Research, 49: 447-456.
Falkner, G., Bank, R.A. & von Proschwitz, T. 2001. CLECOM-PROJECT. Checklist of the
non-marine molluscan species-group taxa of the states of northern, Atlantic and central
Europe (CLECOM I). Heldia, 4: 1-76.
de Ferussac, A.E.J.P.J.F.d@’?A. 1821-[1822]. Tableaux systématiques des animaux mollusques
classés en familles naturelles, dans lesquels on a établi la concordance de tous les systémes;
suivis dun prodrome générale pour tous les mollusques terrestres ou fluviatiles, vivants ou
fossiles. x\vii, 1, 27, 111 pp. A. Bertrand, Paris; J.B. Sowerby, London.
Forbes, E. & Hanley, S. 1853. A history of British Mollusca, and their shells. Volume IV.
Pulmonifera and Cephalopoda. vi, 301, [1] pp., 133 pls. John van Voorst, London.
Gerber, J. 2000. [Review of] Giusti, F., Manganelli, G. & Schembri, P.J. (1996): The
non-marine molluscs of the Maltese Islands. Heldia, 3: 42-44.
Germain, L. 1930. Faune de France 21. Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles. 477 pp. Paris. Paul
Lechevalier.
Giusti, F. 1969. A malacological survey of the small Tuscan islands. Malacologia, 9: 85-91.
Giusti, F. 1977. Biogeographical data on the malacofauna of Sardinia. Malacologia, 16:
125-129.
Giusti, F., Manganelli, G. & Schembri, P. 1996. The non-marine molluscs of the Maltese
Islands. Monografie di Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 15: 1-607.
Gmelin, J.F. 1791. Caroli a Linné, systema naturae per regna tria naturae secundum classes,
ordines,genera, species, cum caracteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Ed. 13, vol. 1, part
VI. Pp. 3021-3910. G.E. Beer, Lipsia [= Leipzig].
Gray, J.E. 1847. A list of the genera of Recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types.
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, [1847]: 129-219.
Guiller, A. & Madec, L. 2010. Historical biogeography of the land snail Cornu aspersum: a new
scenario inferred from haplotype distribution in the western Mediterranean basin. BMC
Evolutionary Biology, 10: 18.
Held, F. 1837. Notizen tiber die Weichtiere Bayerns. Isis, [1837](12): 901-919.
Herbert, D.G. 2010. The Introduced Terrestrial Mollusca of South Africa. SANBI Biodiversity
Series 15. vi, 108 pp. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Herbert, D. & Kilburn, R. 2004. Field guide to the land snails and slugs of eastern South Africa.
[v], 336 pp. Natal Museum, Pietermaritzburg.
Herrmannsen, A.N. 1846-1847. Indicis generum malacozoorum primordia ... Praetermittuntur
Cirripedia, Tunicata et Rhizopoda. Vol. I. xxvii, 637 pp. Fischer, Cassel.
Jess, S. & Marks, R.J. 1995. Population density effects on growth in culture of the edible snail
Helix aspersa var. maxima. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 61: 313-323.
Kerney, M.P. & Cameron, R.A.D. 1979. Field guide to the land snails of Britain and north-west
Europe. 288 pp. Collins, London.
Kiss, L. & Magnin, F. 2003. The impact of fire on some Mediterranean land snail communities
and patterns of post-fire recolonization. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 69: 43-53.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 103
Koene, J.M. & Schulenburg, H. 2005. Shooting darts: co-evolution and counter-adaptation in
hermaphroditic snails. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 5: 25.
Ligaszewski, M., Suréwka, K. & Stekla, J. 2009. The shell features of Cornu aspersum
(synonym Helix aspersa) and Helix pomatia: characteristics and comparison. American
Malacological Bulletin, 27: 173-181.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Locard, A. 1880. Etudes sur les variations malacologiques d’aprés la faune vivante et fossile de
la partie centrale du bassin du Rhone. Annales de la Société d’Aagriculture Histoire
Naturelle et Arts Utiles de Lyon (5)2: 567-1045.
Manganelli, G., Salomone, N. & Giusti, F. 2005. A molecular approach to the phylogenetic
relationships of the western palaearctic Helicoidea (Gastropoda: Stylommatophora).
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 85: 501-512.
Melville, RV. & Smith, J.D.D. 1987. Official lists and indexes of names and works in zoology.
366 pp. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
Montfort, D. de. 1810. Conchyliologie systématique, et classification méthodique des coquilles . . .
Coquilles univalves, non cloisonnées. Tome second. 676 pp. F. Schoell, Paris.
Moquin-Tandon, A. 1855. Histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de France
contenant des études générales sur leur anatomie et physiologie et la description particuliére
des genres, des espéces et des variétés. Tome second. 646 pp. J.-B. Bailliére, Paris.
Miller, O.F. 1774. Vermium terrestrum et fluviatilium, seu animalium infusoriorum, helminthi-
corum, et testaceorum, non marinorum, succincta historia. Volumen alterum. xxxv, 214, [10]
pp. Heineck & Faber, Havniae [= Copenhagen] & Lipsiae [= Leipzig].
Paniagua, R. & Vazquez, J.J. 1976. A special pattern of the smooth endoplasmic reticulum in
the kidney of the snail Cryptomphalus aspersa. Journal of Cell Science, 22: 617-622.
Pfeiffer, L. 1853. Monographia heliceorum viventium. Sistens descriptiones systematicas et
criticas omnium huius familiae generum et specierum hodie cognitarum. Volumen tertium.
Supplementum. Sistens enumerationem auctam omnium huius familiae generum et speci-
erum hodie cognitarum, accedentibus descriptionibus novarum specierum et enumeratione
fossilium. viii, 711 pp. F.A. Brockhaus, Lipsia [= Leipzig].
Pilsbry, H.A. 1888-1889. Continuation of Tryon’s monograph of the Helicidae. Pp. 120-296
in Tryon, G.W., Jr., Manual of conchology; structural and systematic. With illustrations of
the species. Second series: Pulmonata. Vol. IV. Helicidae: — Vol. IT. 296 pp. [pp. 1-192,
1888; pp. 193-296, 1889], 69 pls. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.
Pilsbry, H.A. 1894. Manual of conchology,; Structural and systematic. With illustrations of the
species. Second series: Pulmonata. Vol IX. (Helicidae, Vol. 7.) Guide to the Study of
Helices. xlviii, 366 pp., 71 pls. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.
Pilsbry, H.A. 1948. Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico). Volume II. Part 2.
xlvii, 521-1113 pp. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.
Reeve, L.A. 1854. Conchologica iconica: or, illustrations of the shells of molluscous animals. Vol. VII.
Containing a monograph of the genus Helix. [xx] pp., pls. 1-209, text. Lovell Reeve, London.
Risso, A. 1826. Histoire naturelle des principales productions de l'Europe méridionale et
particuliérement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes. Tome quatriéme. [3],
vil, 439 pp., [12] pls. F.-G. Levrault, Paris.
Robinson, D.G. 1999. Alien invasions: the effects of the global economy on non-marine
gastropod introductions into the United States. Malacologia, 41(2): 413-438.
Rogers, D.W. & Chase, R. 2002. Determinants of paternity in the garden snail Helix aspersa.
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 52: 289-295.
Roth, B. & Sadeghian, P.S. 2003. Checklist of the land snails and slugs of California. Santa
Barbara Museum of Natural History Contributions in Science, 3: 1-81.
Stanisic, J., Shea, M., Potter, D. & Griffiths, O. 2010. Australian land snails. Volume 1. A field
guide to eastern Australian species. xii, 591 pp. Mauritius, Bioculture Press.
Taylor, J.W. 1906-1914. Monograph of the land & freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles. vii,
[i], 522 pp., 35 pls. Leeds, Taylor Brothers.
Tryon, G.W. 1888. Manual of conchology; Structural and systematic. With illustrations of the
species. Second series: Pulmonata. Vol IV. (Helicidae: — Vol. II.) Guide to the study of
Helices. 296 pp., 69 pls. The author, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.
104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
Wade, C.M., Mordan, P.B. & Naggs, F. 2006. Evolutionary relationships among pulmonate
land snails and slugs (Pulmonata, Stylommatophora). Biological Journal of the Linnean
Society, 87: 593-610.
Wade, C.M., Hudelot, C., Davison, A., Naggs, F. & Mordan, P.B. 2007. Molecular phylogeny
of the helicoid land snails (Pulmonata: Stylommatophora: Helicoidea), with special
emphasis on the Camaenidae. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 73: 411-415.
Waldén, H.K. 1976. A nomenclatural list of the land Mollusca of the British Isles. Journal of
Conchology, 29: 21-25.
Woodward, B.B. 1917. On the adventures of the genus name Lucena. Proceedings of the
Malacological Society of London, 12(5): 220.
Zilch, A. 1959-1960. Handbuch der Paldozoologie. Band 6 Gastropoda. Teil 2 Euthyneura. xii,
834 pp. [pp. 1400, 1959; pp. 401-834, i-xii, 1960], Gebriider Borntrager, Berlin.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 2.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 105
Case 3546
Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903 (Bivalvia, RADIOLITIDAE): proposed
designation of Sphaerulites ponsiana d@ Archiac, 1837 as the type
species
Jose Maria Pons and Enric Vicens
Departament de Geologia, Facultat de Ciéncies, Universitat Autonoma de
Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
(e-mail: josepmaria.pons@uab.cat; enric.vicens@uab.cat)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 81.1 of the Code, is to
conserve the usage of the generic name Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1902 by designation
of Sphaerulites ponsiana d’Archiac, 1837 as the type species. The current type species
of Praeradiolites, Radiolites fleuriausus d’Orbigny, 1842, has characteristic features of
Foradiolites Douvillé, 1909 instead of Praeradiolites of current usage, and cannot be
used as the objective standard of reference for the application of the name
Praeradiolites. Maintaining the present situation would entail a series of disruptive
taxonomic changes and threaten stability. We propose the replacement of the type
species of Praeradiolites, which appears to be a less disruptive solution and may
better guarantee wide acceptance and stability.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Bivalvia; RADIOLITIDAE; Praeradiolites; Eora-
diolites; Sphaerulites; fleuriausus; ponsiana; Cretaceous; Tethys.
1. Praeradiolites and Eoradiolites are two radiolitid genera abundantly reported in
rudist palaeontological publications (a list of 71 most recent references on both
genera is held by the Secretariat), their diagnostic features are well established and
widely accepted, and both include a large number of species (Steuber, 2002).
However, the current usage of the generic name Praeradiolites is not in accord with
the characters of its type species.
2. The generic name Praeradiolites was established by Douvillé (1903, p. 469), with
Radiolites fleuriausus d’Orbigny, 1842 (misspelled by Douvillé as Radiolites fleuriaui)
originally designated as its type species. The name Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903 is on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and Radiolites fleuriausus d’Orbigny,
1842 (spelled as fleuriausi) was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology by Opinion 856 (BZN 25(2/3): 86-97, September 1968). Radiolites fleuri-
ausus was named after Louis Benjamin Fleuriau de Bellevue, a naturalist of La
Rochelle. The spelling fleuriausus is an adjectival epithet based on the family name
Fleuriau. The spelling fleuriausi (as in Opinion 856) is justified by neither etymology
nor usage and we propose to correct it to fleuriausus (as already used in Kihn’s
(1932) catalogue). In Opinion 856 the publication date for Praeradiolites Douvillé is
given as 1902, although the correct date is 1903, as the date ‘27 Janvier 1903’ was
printed on p. 385 of vol. 2 of Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France. Neave (1940,
p. 884) gives the correct date 1903.
106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
3. Douvillé (1903, pp. 468-469, pl. 15, figs. 1-2, 4, 6-8) clearly described and
illustrated the characters of R. fleuriausus (which he misspelled as fleuriaui) and other
related species. In the same paper, on p. 469, using Praeradiolites ponsianus as an
example, he described the modifications occurring in more recent species. Douvillé
(1903, p. 470) stated ‘Bien que le genre Praeradiolites comprenne plus particuliérement
les formes anciennes qui n’ont que trois bourrelets ou plis, nous y réunirons encore ces
formes plus récentes soit pleuroconques, soit plagioconques et nous lui donnerons les
caractéeres suivants: Genre Praeradiolites: il comprend toutes les formes de Radiolitinés
qui présentent une aréte cardinale, des lames externes lisses ou légérement ondulées et
essentiellement, dans la région postérieure, deux sinus E et S et un pli ventral; le pli
intermédiaire I entre les deux sinus est plus ou moins développé et enfin un pli dorsal PD,
peut prendre a l'extrémité de la région plissée une importance comparable a celle du pli
ventral V.’ (English translation: Although the genus Praeradiolites embraces more
particularly the ancient forms having only three ‘bourrelets’ or folds, we also add
those more recent forms, pleuroconch or plagioconch and we shall give the following
characters: The genus Praeradiolites: comprising all RADIOLITINAE forms presenting a
ligament ridge, smooth or slightly undulated outer lamellae and essentially, in the
posterior region, two sinuses E and S and a ventral fold; the intermediate fold I
between the two sinuses is more or less developed and finally a dorsal fold PD, may
attain an importance comparable to that of the ventral fold V at the end of the folded
region).
4. Toucas (1907, pp. 17-46, pls. 1-8) transferred some of the earlier species of
Praeradiolites to the genus Agria Matheron, 1878, keeping the others in Praeradio-
lites. The generic name Agria being preoccupied, Kuhn (1932) proposed Agriopleura
to replace it.
5. The generic name Eoradiolites was proposed, in a very short note, by Douvillé
(1909, p. 77) and E. davidsoni was originally designated as its type species. Douvillé
(1910, pp. 22-23) provided more details about Praeradiolites and Eoradiolites and
made comparisons. He also (1910, pp. 20-21) stressed the differences in myophore
development between species of Agria and Eoradiolites. The genus Eoradiolites was
proposed for those primitive species formerly attributed to Praeradiolites that
possessed two radial down-and-outward folds (radial bands at the outer surface)
besides the anterior fold (also a down-and-outward fold), with E. davidsoni as
type species, as opposed to the other species with two radial up-and-inward folds
(radial sinus on the outer surface) limited by three radial down-and-outward folds.
Hence, with regard to this feature, the two genera Eoradiolites and Praeradiolites
correspond to the two groups of species, earlier (primitive) and more recent (evolved)
respectively, formerly recognised by Douvillé (1902, p. 469) within Praeradiolites
(groups of P. fleuriausus and of P. ponsianus in Douvillé (1910, p. 22)). Never-
theless, fleuriausus, with the characteristics of Eoradiolites, is the type species of
Praeradiolites.
6. Pons et al. (2011) fully described and figured the characteristics of P. fleuriausus
on specimens from Italy, and Pons et al. (in press) revised the specimens from the
original locality preserved at the Ecole nationale supérieure des Mines de Paris
Collection, Université Claude Bernard Lyon I, showing that they all agree with those
of Eoradiolites. Macé-Bordy (2007) designated a lectotype from the specimens in
d’Orbigny’s collection. The lectotype and three paralectotypes show characters of
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 107
Eoradiolites, as described in Pons et al. (2010, 2011, in press): ‘Growth lamellae of
right valve steeply inwardly inclined, with three main radial down-and-outward folds
AF, VF and PF. Radial structures VF and PF produce smooth, flat ribs (radial
bands) on the outer surface; the area between VF and PF simple depression that may
bear ribs. Outer shell layer structure is non-compact with continuous radial ridges
producing ribbed commissural lip. Ligament ridge is triangular, base distal. Left
valve with nearly flat centre and inwards inclined margin’.
7. Radiolites fleuriausus d’Orbigny, 1842 is the type species of Praeradiolites
Douvillé, 1903 and should provide the objective standard of reference for the
application of the name Praeradiolites. Nevertheless, it presents the characteristic
features of Eoradiolites Douvillé, 1909 instead of those of Praeradiolites as in current
usage.
8. A strict application of the Code would result in the following major changes in
the taxonomy of rudists: (1) the inclusion in Praeradiolites of the species having
similar characters to P. fleuriausus (all those currently ascribed to Eoradiolites, 51
species in Steuber’s (2002) catalogue); (2) the exclusion from Praeradiolites of the
other species (all those currently ascribed to Praeradiolites, 77 species in Steuber’s
(2002) catalogue); (3) the consideration of Eoradiolites as a junior synonym of
Praeradiolites; and (4) the proposal of a new generic name for all those species
currently ascribed to Praeradiolites. All the above would seriously undermine
stability. The Commission’s action is requested in the view of the forthcoming revised
edition of the Bivalvia volume of the ‘Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology’, which
will include a volume on rudists. It is desirable that this nomenclatural problem
should be resolved before publication of the Treatise. The Treatise is the major
reference book for invertebrate palaeontology systematics (at generic and supra-
generic level) used by most palaeontologists worldwide.
9. Considering the above we propose that the Commission use its plenary power to
set aside all previous type fixations for the genus Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903 and
designate Sphaerulites ponsiana @’Archiac, 1835 as the type species.
10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the genus
Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903 and designate Sphaerulites ponsiana d’Archiac,
1837 as the type species;
(2) to emend the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for the
name Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903 (gender: masculine), to record that its type
species is Sphaerulites ponsiana d’Archiac, 1837, and not Radiolites fleuriausus
d’Orbigny, 1842 as ruled in (1) above and that its correct publication date is
1903 and not 1902;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ponsiana
d’Archiac, 1837, as published in the binomen Sphaerulites ponsiana (specific
name of the type species of Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903, as ruled in (1) above);
(4) to emend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the
name fleuriausus d’Orbigny, 1842, as published in the binomen Radiolites
fleuriausa to record that it is not the type species of Praeradiolites Douvillé,
1903, as ruled in (1) above, and that its correct original spelling is fleuriausus
and not fleuriausi.
108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
References
Archiac, E.J.A.d’. 1837. Mémoire sur la formation crétacée du S-O de la France. Mémoires de
la Société Géologique de France, 2(7): 157-192.
Douvillé, H. 1903. Classification des Radiolites. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France,
(4)2: 461477.
Douvillé, H. 1909. Sur le genre Eoradiolites nov. Comptes Rendus des Séances de la Société
Géologique de France, (4)9: 77.
Douvillé, H. 1910. Etudes sur les rudistes. Rudistes de Sicile, d’Algérie, d’Egypte, du ee et
de la Perse. Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France. Paléontologie, 18 (Mémoire no.
41): 1-84.
Kuhn, O. 1932. Fossilium Catalogus. I: Animalia. Pars 54: Rudistae, 200 pp. W. Junk, Berlin.
Macé-Bordy, J. 2007. Révision des rudistes crétacés (Bivalvia) de la Paléontologie francaise
d’Alcide d’Orbigny. Deuxiéme partie. Annales de Paléontologie, 93: 67-105.
Neave, S.A. 1940. Nomenclator zoologicus. A list of the names of genera and subgenera in
zoology from the tenth edition of Linnaeus 1758 to the end of 1935, vol. 3. M-P. Pp. [1-2],
1-1065. Zoological Society, London.
Orbigny, A.d’. 1842. Quelques considérations zoologiques et géologiques sur les Rudistes.
Annales de Sciences Naturelles, (2)17: 173-192.
Pons, J.M., Vicens, E., Chikhi-Aouimeur, F. & Abdallah, H. 2010. Albian Eoradiolites
(Bivalvia: Radiolitidae) from Jabal Naimia, Gafsa Region, Tunisia, with revisional studies
on the Albian forms of the genus. Journal of Paleontology, 84: 321-331.
Pons, J.M., Vicens, E., Chikhi-Aouimeur, F. & Abdallah, H. (in press). Taxonomical and
biostratigraphical significance of the North African radiolitid rudist bivalve Praeradiolites
biskraensis (Coquand, 1880). Palaeontology.
Pons, J.M., Vicens, E. & Tarlao, A. 2011. Cenomanian radiolitid bivalves from Malchina,
Karst of Trieste, Italy. Cretaceous Research, doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2011.03.009 (online
pre-publication).
Steuber, T. 2002. A palaeontological database of rudist bivalves. Taxonomic Database.
(http://www.paleotax.de/rudists/index.htm) (Accessed 17 May 2011).
Toucas, A. 1907-09. Etudes sur la classification et l’évolution des Radiolitidés. Mémoires de la
Société Géologique de France. Paléontologie, Mémoire n° 36. Premiére partie: Agria et
Praeradiolites (1907), 14: 1-46, pls. 1-8. Deuxiéme partie: Sphaerulites et Radiolites
(1908), 16: 47-78, pls. 9-15. Troisi¢éme partie; Sauvagesia et Biradiolites (1909), 17:
79-132, pls. 16-26. |
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 2
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 109
Case 3547
Cryptotermes dudleyi Banks, 1918 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed
precedence over Calotermes havilandi parasita Wasmann, 1910
(currently Cryptotermes parasita)
Kumar Krishna
Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History,
Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024-5192,
U.S.A. (e-mail: krishn@amnh.org)
Michael S. Engel
Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, and Department of
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, 1501 Crestline Drive — Suite 140,
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66049-2811, U.S.A.; and Division
of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central
Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024-5192, U.S.A.
(e-mail: msengel@ku.edu)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81 of the Code,
is to conserve the usage of the specific name Cryptotermes dudleyi Banks, 1918 for an
important economic termite pest species introduced throughout much of the world
by man. The senior name, Calotermes havilandi parasita Wasmann, 1910 (currently
Cryptotermes parasita), is poorly known, not widely used, and applied only to a
population of restricted distribution, while the junior name has been universally used
in an extensive systematic, biological, and pest management literature since 1918
when it was first proposed. It is accordingly proposed that the specific name dudleyi
be given precedence over parasita whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isoptera; KALOTERMITIDAE; Cryptotermes;
Cryptotermes dudleyi; Cryptotermes parasita; termites; worldwide.
1. Wasmann (1910, p. 120) described Calotermes havilandi parasita from Mauritius
and Europa Island, without selecting a holotype. Subsequently, Holmgren (191 1a,
p. 55) transferred Calotermes havilandi parasita to the subgenus Cryptotermes (today
treated as a separate genus) and elevated the subspecies to specific rank, as
Calotermes (Cryptotermes) parasita.
2. Banks (1918, p. 660) described and illustrated the drywood termite Cryptotermes
dudleyi from Panama in his faunal account of the Isoptera of British Guiana and
Panama.
3. Bacchus (1987, p. 53) selected a lectotype for parasita from Wasmann’s syntypes
from Mauritius and declared parasita a synonym of Cryptotermes dudleyi. He,
however, retained dudleyi as the valid name despite parasita having priority. The type
series of C. havilandi parasita Wasmann included syntypes from Mauritius and
110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
Europa. It was found to be mixed. The syntypes from Europa Island, which are now
paralectotypes with no name-bearing status, belong to Cryptotermes havilandi
SjOstedt, 1900 (Chhotani, 1970, p. 43; Bacchus, 1987, p. 1). A syntype from Mauritius
was selected by Bacchus (1987, p. 53) as the lectotype of parasita, which that
author then declared to be a junior synonym of Cryptotermes dudleyi Banks,
1918, without realising that parasita Wasmann 1910 has priority over dudleyi Banks,
1918.
4. Engel & Krishna (2002, p. 90) petitioned to conserve dudleyi relative to another
senior synonym, Calotermes (Cryptotermes) jacobsoni Holmgren, 1913. The conser-
vation of dudleyi relative to jacobsoni was upheld by the Commission and both names
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (Opinion 2064, BZN 61(1):
57-58, March 2004)). These authors overlooked at that time the similar priority of
parasita over dudleyi.
5. Cryptotermes dudleyi Banks has a wide distribution and is a significant pest
species, introduced into all the geographical regions of the world (Oriental, Ethio-
pian, Palaearctic, Nearctic, Neotropical, Australian and Pacific Oceanic Islands). The
name dudleyi has been widely used in biological, systematic, and pest control
literature. Since 1918 it has appeared in more than 100 biological and systematic
papers and in a voluminous literature on pest control (e.g. Harris, 1961; Gay, 1967;
Araujo, 1970; Roonwal, 1970; Sen Sarma 1974; Sen Sarma et al., 1975; Gay &
Watson, 1982; Steward, 1983a, 1983b; Thakur, 1984; Roonwal & Chhotani, 1989;
Huang et al., 1989, 2000; Watson et al., 1998; Scheffrahn & Kreéek, 1999; Bordereau
et al., 1999; Constantino, 2002; Fontes & Milano, 2002; Milano & Fontes, 2002).
Conversely, the name parasita has been associated with only a restricted distribution
(Comoros, Mauritius and Madagascar) and has been used only nine times in the
same period, generally in checklists and catalogues (Holmgren, 1911a, 1911b; Hegh,
1922; Sjostedt, 1926; Snyder, 1949; Van Boven, 1969; Chhotani, 1970; Bacchus, 1987;
Eggleton & Davies, 2003), not in any revisionary or biological studies.
6. To replace the name dudleyi, which has been and is now universally used in the
literature and widely recognised, with the obscure name parasita would, to say the
least, create confusion and nomenclatural instability, particularly for the vast
biological control and pest management community. We therefore propose that the
name C. dudleyi be given precedence over C. parasita, with parasita remaining
available for any future investigators who may wish to resurrect the epithet. In
accordance with Article 23.9.3 of the Code this case is referred to the Commission for
a ruling under Article 81.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name dudleyi Banks, 1918, as published
in the binomen Cryptotermes dudleyi, precedence over the name parasita
Wasmann, 1910, as published in the trinomen Calotermes havilandi parasita,
whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name parasita
Wasmann, 1910, as published in the trinomen Calotermes havilandi parasita,
with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name dudleyi
Banks, 1918, as published in the binomen Cryptotermes dudleyi, whenever the
two are considered to be synonyms;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 L¥I
(3) to amend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the
name dudleyi Banks, 1918, as published in the binomen Cryptotermes dudleyi,
to record that it is to be given precedence over the name parasita Wasmann,
1910, as published in the trinomen Calotermes havilandi parasita, whenever the
two are considered to be synonyms.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to L. Herman and Y. Roisin for incisive suggestions and comments
and to V. Krishna for editorial assistance.
References
Araujo, R.L. 1970. Termites of the Neotropical region. Pp. 527-576 in Krishna, K. & Weesner,
F.M. (Eds.), Biology of Termites [Volume 2]. Academic Press, New York.
Bacchus, S. 1987. A taxonomic and biometric study of the genus Cryptotermes (Isoptera:
Kalotermitidae). Tropical Pest Bulletin, 7: [iv], 1-91.
Banks, N. 1918. The termites of Panama and British Guiana. Bulletin of the American Museum
of Natural History, 38(17): 659-667, pl. 1.
Bordereau, C., Peppuy, A., Connétable, S. & Robert, A. 1999. Les termites de l’ile de la Réunion
et leur importance économique. Actes des Colloques Insectes Sociaux, 12: 159-164.
Chhotani, O.B. 1970. Taxonomy, zoogeography and phylogeny of the genus Cryptotermes
(Isoptera: Kalotermitidae) from the Oriental region. Memoirs of the Zoological Survey of
India, 15(1): 1, 1-81.
Constantino, R. 2002. The pest termites of South America: Taxonomy, distribution and status.
Journal of Applied Entomology, 126: 355-365.
Eggleton, P. & Davies, R. 2003. Isoptera, termites. Pp. 654-660 in Goodman, S.M. & Benstead,
J.P. (Eds.), The Natural History of Madagascar. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.
Engel, M.S. & Krishna, K. 2002. Case 3181. Cryptotermes dudleyi Banks, 1918 (Insecta,
Isoptera): Proposed precedence over Calotermes (Cryptotermes) jacobsoni Holmgren,
1913. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 59(2): 90-92.
Evans, T.A. 2010. Invasive termites. Pp. 519-562 in Bignell, D.A., Roisin, Y. & Lo, N. (Eds.),
Biology of Termites: A Modern Synthesis. Springer, Dordrecht.
Fontes, L.R. & Milano, S. 2002. Termites as an urban problem in South America. Sociobiology,
40(1): 103-151.
Gay, F.J. 1967. A world review of introduced species of termites. Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organization Bulletin, 286: 1-88.
Gay, F.J. & Watson, J.A.L. 1982. The genus Cryptotermes in Australia (Isoptera: Kaloter-
mitidae). Australian Journal of Zoology, Supplement, 88: 1-64.
Harris, W.V. 1961. Termites: Their Recognition and Control. xii, 187 pp. Longmans, Green &
Co., London.
Holmgren, N. 191la. Termitenstudien. 2. Systematik der Termiten. Die Familien Mastoter-
mitidae, Protermitidae und Mesotermitidae. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens
Handlingar, 46(6): 1-86, 6 pls.
Holmgren, N. 1911b. Bemerkungen tiber einige Termiten-Arten. Zoologischen Anzeiger, 37(26):
545-553.
Holmgren, N. 1913. Termitenstudien. 4. Versuch einer systematischen Monographie der
Termiten der orientalischen Region. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlin-
gar, 50(2): 1-276, 8 pls.
Huang, F.-S., Li, G.-X. & Zhu, S.-M. 1989. The Taxonomy and Biology of Chinese Termites —
Isoptera. 2, 2, 605 pp. Tianze Press. Guangzhou.
Huang, F., Zhu, S., Ping, X., He, X., Li, G. & Gao, D. 2000. Fauna Sinica [Volume 17], Insecta:
Isoptera. xxiv, 961 pp. Science Press, Beijing.
Milano, S. & Fontes, L.R. 2002. Cupim e Cidade: Implicagées Ecologicas e Controle. 141 pp.
Conquista Artes Graficas, Sao Paulo.
112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
Roonwal, M.L. 1970. Termites of the Oriental region. Pp. 315-391 in Krishna, K. & Weesner,
F.M. (Eds.), Biology of Termites [Volume 2]. Academic Press, New York.
Roonwal, M.L. & Chhotani, O.B. 1989. The Fauna of India and Adjacent Countries. Isoptera
(Termites). (Introduction and Families Termopsidae, Hodotermitidae, Kalotermitidae,
Rhinotermitidae, Stylotermitidae and Indotermitidae) [Volume 1]. [8], viii, 672 pp.
Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta.
Scheffrahn, R.H. & Kfetek, J. 1999. Termites of the genus Cryptotermes Banks (Isoptera:
Kalotermitidae) from the West Indies. Insecta Mundi, 13(3-4): 111-171.
Sen Sarma, P.K. 1974. Ecology and biogeography of the termites of India. Pp. 421-472 in
Mani, M.S. (Ed.), Ecology and Biogeography in India. W. Junk, The Hague.
Sen Sarma, P.K., Thakur, M.L., Misra, S.C. & Gupta, B.K. 1975. Studies on Wood Destroying
Termites of India (Final Technical Report 1968-73) under PL 480 Project A7-FS-58. viii,
187, [2] pp. Forest Research Institute & Colleges. Dehra Dun.
Sjéstedt, Y. 1900. Monographie der Termiten Afrikas. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps-
Akademiens Handlingar, 34(4): 1-236.
Sjéstedt, Y. 1926. Revision der Termiten Afrikas. 3. Monographie. Kungliga Svenska
Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, Tredje Serien 3(1): 1-419, 16 pls.
Snyder, T.E. 1949. Catalog of termites (Isoptera) of the world. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections, 112(3953): 1-490.
Steward, R.C. 1983a. Microclimate and colony foundation by imago and neotenic reproduc-
tives of dry-wood termite species (Cryptotermes sp.) (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae). Socio-
biology, 7(3): 311-331.
Steward, R.C. 1983b. The effects of humidity, temperature and acclimation on the feeding,
water balance and reproduction of dry-wood termites (Cryptotermes). Entomologia
Experimentalis et Applicata, 33: 135-144.
Thakur, M.L. 1984. Further records of occurrence and incidence of damage by termites of the
genus Cryptotermes Banks in India (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae). Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society, 81(2): 497-500.
Van Boven, J.K.A. 1969. The termite types of the Wasmann Collection in the Natuurhistorisch
Museum of Maastricht. Publicatiés van het Natuurhistorisch Genootschap in Limburg,
19(1-2): 37-61.
Wasmann, E. 1910. Termiten von Madagaskar, den Comoren und Inseln Ostafrikas.
Pp. 115-127 in Voeltzkow, A. (Ed.), Reise in Oskafrika in den Jahren 1903-1905: Mit
Mitteln der Hermann und Elise geb. Heckmann Wentzel-Stiftung Ausgefiihrt. Wissen-
schaftliche Ergebnisse. Band III. Systematische Arbeiten. Heft I. E. Schweizerbart’sche
Verlag, Stuttgart.
Watson, J.A.L., Miller, L.R. & Abbey, H.M. 1998. Isoptera. Pp. 163-250 in Houston, W.W.K.
& Wells, A. (Eds.), Zoological Catalogue of Australia [Volume 23]: Archaeognatha,
Zygentoma, Blattodea, Isoptera, Mantodea, Dermaptera, Phasmatodea, Embioptera,
Zoraptera. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 2
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 113
Case 3538
CORYNINAE Benson, 1938 (Insecta, Hymenoptera, CIMBICIDAE): proposed
emendation of spelling to CORYNIDINAE to remove homonymy with
CORYNIDAE Johnston, 1836 (Cnidaria, Anthoathecata)
Stephan M. Blank
Senckenberg Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Eberswalder Str. 90,
15374 Muiincheberg, Germany (e-mail: Stephan. Blank@senckenberg.de)
Mattias Forshage
Entomology Department, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007,
104 05 Stockholm, Sweden (e-mail: Mattias.Forshage@nrm.se)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 29 and 55.3.1 of the Code,
is to remove the homonymy between two family-group names, CORYNINAE of
Hymenoptera (Insecta) and CoRYNIDAE of Anthoathecata (Cnidaria). It is proposed
to adopt the Greek genitive form Corynid- of the sawfly genus Corynis Thunberg,
1789 as the stem of the corresponding family-group name, giving CORYNIDINAE
Benson, 1938. CORYNIDAE Johnston, 1836, a name for hydrozoans, would remain
unchanged.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Anthoathecata; Hymenoptera; cIMBICIDAE;
CORYNIDAE; CORYNIDINAE; Coryne; Corynis; sawflies; hydrozoans; Palaearctic.
1. Johnston (1836, p. 107) proposed the family-group name CORYNIDAE to
accommodate a genus of hydrozoans (Cnidaria). The name is based on the extant
genus Coryne Gaertner in Pallas, 1774 (pp. 40-41) established for C. pusilla Gaertner
in Pallas, 1774 (pp. 40-41), which is the type species by monotypy. The journal
volume including the original publication of Johnston bears the imprinted date 1834
but it was corrected to 1836 by Cornelius (1982, p. 133). Currently, CORYNIDAE is
applied as the valid name of a family of Hydrozoa (e.g. Bouillon & Boero, 2000;
Bouillon et al., 2006; Daly et al., 2007; Schuchert, 2001, 2010).
2. Benson (1938, p. 371) proposed the family-group name CORYNINAE, based on the
extant genus of sawflies (Insecta, Hymenoptera, ‘Symphyta’) Corynis Thunberg, 1789
(p. 13 and footnote h), which originally included the species “Tenthredinem luteam,
obscuram, & hisce similes’. These species correspond with Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus,
1758 (p. 555), currently classified as Cimbex luteus (Linnaeus, 1758) (see Taeger et al.,
2010, p. 190), and Tenthredo obscura Fabricius, 1775 (p. 319), currently classified as
Corynis obscura (Fabricius, 1775) (see Taeger et al. 2010, p. 199). Morice & Durrant
(1915, p. 372) selected Tenthredo obscura Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of
Corynis, erroneously referring to ‘obscura L[innaeus]’. Currently, CORYNINAE is in use
for a subfamily of the sawfly family cimBIcIDAE Thomson, 1871 (e.g. Lorenz & Kraus,
1957; Benson, 1968; Abe & Smith, 1991; Ermolenko, 1972, 2001; Taeger & Blank,
1998; Taeger et al., 2010). CORYNINAE includes a single genus, Corynis Thunberg,
114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
1789, which comprises 28 mostly West Palaearctic species (Benson, 1968; Taeger
et al., 2010). In a forthcoming revision, a number of additional species will be
described (H.-J. Jacobs et al., pers. comm.).
3. Thunberg’s (1789, p. 13 and footnote h) brief original description of Corynis does
not include an explicit etymology. The name is certainly based on the Greek noun
kopvvy (club), because Thunberg’s short Latin diagnosis ‘Antenne capitate’ refers to
the clavate shape of the antennae, which is characteristic of Corynis as well as of other
CIMBICIDAE. The Greek noun was correctly transliterated by Thunberg (1789) for
Corynis and by Gaertner in Pallas, 1774 (pp. 40-41) for Coryne. The ending -is given
by Thunberg for Corynis may have two explanations, which are both equally plausi-
ble: (1) it is a modification to fit into the 3rd Latin declension. In this case the stem is
Coryn- and it conflicts with CORYNIDAE Johnston, 1836 as stated above; (2) it is a
Greek suffix -is (genitive -idos) to indicate ‘user of or “bearer of’, as in the Greek noun
pharmakis (sorcerer), which is derived from the Greek noun pharmakon (potion). In
this case the stem would be CoRYNID-, giving CORYNIDINAE for the subfamily name in
CIMBICIDAE, which would not conflict with CORYNIDAE Johnston, 1836.
4. Gussakovsky (1947, pp. 14, 115, 178, 215) proposed the family-group name AMASINI,
based on the extant genus of sawflies Amasis Leach, 1817 (pp. 102, 114). In the original
description of Amasis, both Tenthredo obscura Fabricius, 1775 (p. 319) and Tenthredo
laeta Fabricius, 1798 (p. 214) were included. Westwood (1839, p. 52) designated
Tenthredo obscura Fabricius, 1775 as the type species. Amasis Leach, 1817 is a junior
objective synonym of Corynis Thunberg, 1789 due to identical type species (Morice &
Durrant, 1915, p. 372). Ermolenko (1972, p. 167) was the first to associate the family-
group names AMASINI Gussakovskij, 1947 and CORYNINAE Benson, 1938, applying Cory-
NINAE as the valid name for the subfamily of cIMBICIDAE. Subsequent to Gussakovskij
(1947), AMASINI has been used as a valid name only once by Cinovskij (1953, pp. 27, 57).
5. Since the revision of Corynis by Benson (1968), most authors have applied
Corynis as the valid name for a particular sawfly genus associated with CIMBICIDAE.
Amasis Leach, 1817 is the only available, junior synonym of Corynis Thunberg, 1789
(Blank et al., 2009, Taeger et al., 2010). Two lists which demonstrate the frequent use
after 1968 of Corynis (a selection of 50 references) against the rare use of Amasis (a
total of only seven publications found) have been forwarded to the Commission
Secretariat.
6. Both the family-group names CORYNIDAE Johnston, 1836 (Cnidaria) and
CORYNINAE Benson, 1938 (Insecta) are correctly formed and are in general use.
Raising AMASINI Gussakovskij, 1947 to subfamily rank and replacing CORYNINAE
Benson, 1938 would cause considerable confusion, because since Benson’s (1968)
revision, Corynis Thunberg, 1789 has almost consistently been used as the valid name
of the only included genus, whereas Amasis Leach, 1817 has been used as valid only
rarely and possibly only inadvertently (e.g. in the original description of Amasis
valkanovi Vasilev, 1969, pp. 695-696, a junior subjective synonym of Corynis obscura
(Fabricius, 1775) according to Taeger et al. (2010, p. 199)). To remove the
homonymy, it is therefore proposed, in accordance with Article 29.1 of the Code, to
presume that the -is in Corynis is the Greek suffix of which the genitive would be -idos
as explained in para. 4 above, so that the hymenopteran family-group name based on
it would become CoRYNIDINAE. As required by Article 55.3.1 of the Code this case is
referred to the Commission.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 115
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 the stem of
the generic name Corynis Thunberg, 1789 is Corynid-;
(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Corynis Thunberg, 1789 (gender: feminine), type species Tenthredo obscura
Fabricius, 1775 by subsequent designation by Morice & Durrant (1915);
(b) Coryne Gaertner in Pallas, 1774 (gender: feminine), type species by
monotypy Coryne pusilla Gaertner in Pallas, 1774;
(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) obscura Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Tenthredo obscura
(specific name of the type species of Corynis Thunberg, 1789);
(b) pusilla Gaertner in Pallas, 1774, as published in the binomen Coryne pusilla
(specific name of the type species of Coryne Gaertner in Pallas, 1774);
(4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology:
(a) CORYNIDINAE Benson, 1938, type genus Corynis Thunberg, 1789 (spelling
emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Insecta, Hymenoptera);
(b) CORYNIDAE Johnston, 1836, type genus Coryne Gaertner in Pallas, 1774
(Cnidaria, Anthoathecata);
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology the name CORYNINAE Benson, 1938 (spelling emended to CORYNIDINAE
in (1) above). }
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to H.-J. Jacobs (Ranzin), P. Schuchert (Geneva), A. Shinohara
(Tokyo), D.R. Smith (Washington, DC), A. Taeger and A.D. Liston (Miincheberg)
and M. Wei (Changsha) for critically reading earlier versions of the manuscript and
supporting this application.
References
Abe, M. & Smith, D.R. 1991. The Genus-group Names of Symphyta (Hymenoptera) and Their
Type Species. Esakia, 31: 1-115.
Benson, R.B. 1938. On the Classification of Sawflies (Hymenoptera Symphyta). Transactions of
the Royal Entomological Society of London, 87(15): 353-384.
Benson, R.B. 1968. Hymenoptera from Turkey, Symphyta. Bulletin of the British Museum
(Natural History) Entomology series, 22(4): 111-207.
Blank, S.M., Taeger, A., Liston, A.D., Smith, D.R., Rasnitsyn, A.P., Shinohara, A., Heidemaa,
M. & Viitasaari, M. 2009. Studies toward a World Catalog of Symphyta (Hymenoptera).
Zootaxa, 2254: 1-96.
Bouillon, J. & Boero, F. 2000. Synopsis of the families and genera of the Hydromedusae of the
world, with a list of the worldwide species. Thalassia Salentina, 24: 47-296.
Bouillon, J., Gravili, C., Pagés, F., Gili, J.-M. & Boero, F. 2006. An introduction to Hydrozoa.
Mémoires du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 194: 1-591.
Cinovskij, Ja.P. 1953. Nasekomye Latvijskoj SSR. Rogohvosty i pilil’shchiki. 209 pp.
Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk Latvijskoj SSR, Riga.
Cornelius, P.F.S. 1982. Hydroids and medusae of the family Campanulariidae recorded from
the eastern North Atlantic, with a world synopsis of genera. Bulletin of the British Museum
(Natural History) Zoology series, 42(2): 37-148.
Daly, M., Brugler, M.R., Cartwright, P., Collin, A.G., Dawson, M.N., Fautin, D.G., France,
S.C., McFadden, C.S., Opresko, D.M., Rodriguez, E., Romano, S.L. & Stake, J.L. 2007.
116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
The phylum Cnidaria: A review of phylogenetic patterns and diversity 300 years after
Linnaeus. Zootaxa, 1668: 127-182.
Ermolenko, V.M. 1972. Rohoxvosty ta pyl’shhyky. Vypusk 2. Tentredopodibni pyl’shhyky.
Cymbicydy. Blastykotomidy. Jn Fauna Ukrayiny, 10(2): 1-203, Kyyiv.
Ermolenko, V.M. 2001. Novyi dlya nauki vid pilil’shchikov roda Corynis (Hymenoptera,
Cimbicidae) iz Arment. [A New Sawfly Species of the Genus Corynis (Hymenoptera,
Cimbicidae) from Armenia]. Vestnik zoologii, 35(4): 73-76.
Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species,
adiectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus. xxxii, 832 pp. Officina Libraria
Kortii, Flensburgi et Lipsiae.
Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Supplementum entomologiae systematicae. 572 pp. Hafniae.
Gussakovskij, V.V. 1947: Insectes Hyménopteres, Chalastogastra (partie 2), vol. 2(2). Pp.
1-235 in Pavlovsky, E.N. & Stackelberg, A.A. (Eds.), Faune de TURSS. Academie des
Sciences de l’URSS, Moscow, Leningrad.
Johnston, [G.] 1836. A Catalogue of the Zoophytes of Berwickshire. History of the Berwickshire
Naturalists’ Club, 1[1834]: 107-108.
Leach, W.E. 1817. The Zoological Miscellany. Being Descriptions of New or Interesting
Animals, vol. 3. 151 pp. R. & A. Taylor, Shoe-Lane, London.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Lorenz, H. & Kraus, M. 1957. Die Larvalsystematik der Blattwespen (Tenthredinoidea und
Megalodontoidea). Abhandlungen zur Larvalsystematik der Insekten, 1: 1-389.
Morice, F.D. & Durrant, J.H. 1915. The authorship and first publication of the Jurinean
Genera of Hymenoptera: Being a reprint of a long-lost work by Panzer, with a translation
into English, an Introduction, and Bibliographical and Critical notes. Transactions of the
Entomological Society of London, {1914|(3-4): 339-436.
Pallas, P.S. 1774. Spicilegia zoologica. Quibus novae imprimis et obscurae animalium species
iconibus, descriptionibus atque commentariis illustrantur. Fasciculus x: 1-[42], index
[1-10]. In Pallas, P.S. 1767-1780: Spicilegia zoologica. Tomus I. Continens quadrupedium,
avium, amphibiorum, piscium, insectorum, molluscorum aliorumque marinorum. Gottl.
August. Lange, Berolini.
Schuchert, P. 2001. Survey of the family Corynidae (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa). Revue Suisse de
Zoologie, 108(4): 739-878.
Schuchert, P. 2010. Corynidae in Schuchert, P. World Hydrozoa database. Accessed at
http://www.marinespecies.org/hydrozoa/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1599 Accessed on
19 May 2011. 7
Taeger, A. & Blank, S.M. 1998. Systematische Ubersicht. Pp. 337-338 in Taeger, A. & Blank,
S.M. (Eds.), Pflanzenwespen Deutschlands (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Kommentierte
Bestandsaufnahme. Goecke & Evers, Keltern.
Taeger, A., Blank, S.M. & Liston, A.D. 2010. World Catalog of Symphyta (Hymenoptera).
Zootaxa, 2580: 1—1064.
Thunberg, C.P. 1789. Periculum entomologicum, quo characteres generum Insectorum proponit
etc. Dissert. Resp. S. Foerner. Edman, Upsaliae, 16 pp.
Vasilev, I.B. 1969. Neue Blattwespenart Amasis Leach. (Cimbicidae, Hymenoptera) aus
Bulgarien. Doklady Bolgarskoi Akademii Nauk, 22(6): 695-696.
Westwood, J.O. 1839. Synopsis of the Genera of British Insects. Pp. 49-80 in Westwood, J.O.
1838-1840: An introduction to the modern classification of insects; founded on the natural
habits and corresponding organisation of the different families. Longman, Orme, Brown,
Green & Longmans, London.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 117
Case 3544
Apis armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed
conservation by designation of a neotype
Michael S. Engel
Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, and Department of
Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, 1501 Crestline Drive — Suite 140,
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66049-2811, U.S.A.
(e-mail: msengel@ku.edu)
Ulrich Kotthoff
Geologisch-Paldontologisches Institut, Universitat Hamburg, Bundesstrafse
55, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany (e-mail: fgiv005@uni-hamburg.de)
Torsten Wappler
Steinmann-Institut ftir Geologie, Mineralogie und Paldontologie, Universitat
Bonn, Nufallee 8, D-53115 Bonn, Germany (e-mail: twappler@uni-bonn.de)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.5 of the Code, is to
conserve the name Apis armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931 for a species of fossil honey bee
occurring in the Miocene fauna of southwestern Germany. The holotype is the
hollow impression of a bee from the Early Miocene B6éttingen Marmor and, aside
from attributing the taxon to the tribe APINI, no details regarding its specific identity
can be gleaned from this specimen. Nonetheless, this name has been universally
applied to the Early Miocene honey bees from B6éttingen Marmor and the related
contemporaneous site from the same crater series, Randeck Maar, since Zeuner &
Manning (1976). Although A. armbrusteri is recognised as a nomen dubium, to
resurrect the unused specific epithet Apis scheuthlei (Armbruster, 1938) for these
bees would be counter to current usage and would destabilise a voluminous
literature on honey bee evolution and ecology. It would also threaten the subgeneric
name Cascapis Engel, 1999 as A. armbrusteri sensu Zeuner & Manning (1976), i.e.
based on the Randeck Maar material, is its type species by original designation.
Accordingly, it is proposed that the unidentifiable holotype be set aside and one of
the more exquisitely preserved and easily diagnosable specimens from this same
fauna be designated as neotype, thereby stabilising the honey bee taxonomy and
bringing the application of the name A. armbrusteri in line with universal current
usage.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; APIDAE; Apis; Apis armbrusteri;
Cascapis; Hauffapis; apiculture; fossil honey bees; Miocene.
1. Zeuner (1931, p. 292) proposed the name Apis armbrusteri for a new fossil honey
bee species based on the hollow remains of several workers on a thermal limestone
118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
slab from the Early Miocene of Béttingen Marmor (Swabian Alb, Wiirttemberg,
southwestern Germany). The casts do not preserve any species-specific details of
honey bees. Zeuner (p. 297) designated the third cast on the block as the holotype.
2. Armbruster (1938, p. 37) described a new genus, Hauffapis with three included
species, Hauffapis scheuthlei, H. scheeri and H. scharmanni (pp. 43-44), for a group
of exceptionally well preserved early honey bees from the Early Miocene of Randeck
Maar (Swabian Alb, Wirttemberg, southwestern Germany), a deposit that is part of
the same crater series as that of B6ttingen Marmor but of considerably different
taphonomy and preservation. The genus-group name Hauffapis is unavailable as no
type species was originally (or has subsequently been) selected (Article 13.3 of the
Code; Michener, 1990, 1997; Engel, 1999).
3. Zeuner & Manning (1976, pp. 244-248), in a monographic study of the fossil
bees of the world published posthumously from accumulated notes, considered Apis
armbrusteri and the three “Hauffapis’ species to be conspecific and united them all
under the former name, retaining Armbruster’s epithets as subspecific entities for
minor variations in wing venation.
4. Engel (1999, p. 187), in a taxonomic overview of living and fossil honey bees,
proposed the subgeneric name Cascapis, to use in place of Hauffapis Armbruster,
1938, describing the subgenus on the basis of the well preserved Randeck Maar honey
bees, then all considered as Apis armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931, following Zeuner &
Manning (1976). Apis armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931 is the type species of Cascapis by
original designation.
5. Since Zeuner & Manning’s (1976) monograph, the name Apis armbrusteri
Zeuner, 1931 has been universally employed as the name for the Miocene species of
honey bee from the Béttingen Marmor-Randeck Maar fauna. Indeed, it had already
been the standard usage for many years prior to their monograph. The name has
appeared in countless works on honey bee systematics and evolution, and in the
voluminous apicultural literature (e.g. Statz, 1934, 1944; Roussy, 1937; Kelner-
Pillault, 1969a, 1969b; Burnham, 1978; Culliney, 1983; Seeley, 1985; Ruttner 1988,
1992; Ruttner et al., 1986; Zhang, 1990; Michener, 1990, 1997, 2007; Hong & Miao,
1992; Petrov, 1992; Lutz, 1993; Engel, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2006; Engel
et al., 2009; Kotthoff, 2005; Oldroyd & Wongsiri, 2006; Tan et al., 2008).
6. In addition, the genus-group name Cascapis Engel, 1999 would also be
threatened as A. armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931 is its type species by original designation,
although the diagnosis is based on the more completely preserved Randeck Maar
material under the synonymic names, H. scheuthlei, H. scheeri and H. scharmanni.
7. The incompleteness of the holotype leaves the identity of Apis armbrusteri
entirely ambiguous, even at the generic level. Reverting to one of Armbruster’s (1938)
long unused epithets would be counter to nomenclatural stability and universal
usage. Presently involved in a review of the Miocene diversity of honey bees, we
propose the stabilisation of Apis armbrusteri Zeuner by replacement of the uniden-
tifiable name-bearing type by a neotype in accordance with Article 75.5. We therefore
propose that an exceptionally well preserved specimen from Randeck Maar
(Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde, SMNS 64675, Fig. 1) should be designated as
neotype.
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 119
Fig. 1. Proposed neotype of Apis armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931 (Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde, SMNS
64675). Scale bar = 2 mm.
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal
species Apis armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931 and to designate as neotype a specimen
from the same geological horizon at Randeck Maar (SMNS 64675 in the
Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde, Stuttgart);
2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Cascapis
Engel, 1999 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Apis
armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931;
3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name armbrusteri
Zeuner, 1931, as published in the binomen Apis armbrusteri and as defined by
the neotype designated in (1) above (specific name of the type species of
Cascapis Engel, 1999).
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for constructive comments provided by C.D. Michener (University of
Kansas). This is a contribution of the Division of Entomology, University of Kansas
Natural History Museum.
References
Armbruster, L. 1938. Versteinerte Honigbienen aus dem obermiocanen Randecker Maar.
Archiv ftir Bienenkunde, 19: 1-48.
120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
Burnham, L. 1978. Survey of social insects in the fossil record. Psyche, 85: 85-133.
Culliney, T.W. 1983. Origin and evolutionary history of the honeybees Apis. Bee World, 64:
29-38.
Engel, M.S. 1998. Fossil honey bees and evolution in the genus Apis (Hymenoptera: Apidae).
Apidologie, 29: 265-281.
Engel, M.S. 1999. The taxonomy of Recent and fossil honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae;
Apis). Journal of Hymenoptera Research, 8: 165-196.
Engel, M.S. 2000. Fossils and phylogeny: A paleontological perspective on social bee
evolution. Pp. 217-224 in Bitondi, M.M.G. & Hartfelder, K. (Eds.), Anais do IV Encontro
sobre Abelhas. Universidade de Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto.
Engel, M.S. 2001. The honey bees of Thailand (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Natural History
Bulletin of the Siam Society, 49: 113-116.
Engel, M.S. 2002. The honey bees of India, Hymenoptera: Apidae. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society, 99: 3-7.
Engel, M.S. 2006. A giant honey bee from the middle Miocene of Japan (Hymenoptera:
Apidae). American Museum Novitates, 3504: 1-12.
Engel, M.S., Hinojosa-Diaz, I.A. & Rasnitsyn, A.P. 2009. A honey bee from the Miocene of
Nevada and the biogeography of Apis (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Apini). Proceedings of the
California Academy of Sciences, Series 4, 60: 23-38.
Hong, Y.-C. & Miao, S.-J. 1992. Fossil bee [sic] and its origin with discussion on the origin of
the angiosperm. Memoirs of the Beijing Natural History Museum, 51: 1-19. [In Chinese,
with English summary]
Kelner-Pillault, S. 1969a. Abeilles fossiles ancestres des apides sociaux. Proceedings of the VI
Congress of the IUSSI [International Union for the Study of Social Insects], Bern, 1969:
85-93.
Kelner-Pillault, S. 1969b. Les abeilles fossiles. Memoire della Societa Entomologica Italiana, 48:
519-534.
Kotthoff, U. 2005. Uber einige Hymenoptera (Insecta) aus dem Unter-Miozin des Randecker
Maars (Schwabische Alb, Sudwestdeutschland). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde,
Serie B, Geologie und Paldontologie, 355: 1—25.
Lutz, H. 1993. Eckfeldapis electrapoides nov. gen. n. sp., eine ““Honigbiene’” aus dem
Mittel-Eozan des “Eckfelder Maares” be1 Manderscheid/Eifel, Deutschland (Hymenop-
tera: Apidae, Apinae). Mainzer Naturwissenschaftliches Archiv, 31: 177-199.
Michener, C.D. 1990. Classification of the Apidae (Hymenoptera). University of Kansas
Science Bulletin, 54: 75-164.
Michener, C.D. 1997. Genus-group names of bees and supplemental family-group names.
Scientific Papers, Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, 1: 1-81.
Michener, C.D. 2007. The Bees of the World [2nd Edition]. xvi, [i], 953 pp. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore.
Oldroyd, B.P. & Wongsiri, S. 2006. Asian honey bees: Biology, conservation, and human
interactions. xv, [i], 340 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Petrov, P. 1992. Distribution and phylogenesis of the bee genus Apis (Hymenoptera, Apidae).
Uspechi Sovremennoi Biologii, Moscow, 112: 359-372.
Roussy, L. 1937. Contributions a l’étude de l’abeille tertiaire, de ses parasites et de ses ennemis.
La Gazette Apicole, Montfavet, 388: 49-72.
Ruttner, F. 1988. Biogeography and taxonomy of honeybees. xii, 284 pp. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Ruttner, F. 1992. Naturgeschichte der Honigbienen. 357 pp. Ehrenwirth, Munich.
Ruttner, F., Wilson, E.C., Snelling, R., Vorwohl, G. & Kauhausen, D. 1986. Die Evolution des
Fliigelgedders der Honigbienen. Apidologie, 17: 348-350.
Seeley, T.D. 1985. Honeybee ecology: A study of adaptation in social life. x, 201 pp. Princeton
University Press, Princeton.
Statz, G. 1934. Neue Beobachtungen uber fossile Bienen aus dem Tertiar von Rott am
Siebengebirge. Archiv fiir Bienenkunde, 15: 1-10.
Statz, G. 1944. Honigbienen aus deutschen Braunkohlenwaldern. Die Umschau, 48: 63-65.
Tan, K., Fuchs, S. & Engel, M.S. 2008. An adventitious distal abscissa in the forewing of honey
bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Apidologie, 39: 674-682.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 121
Zeuner, F.E. 1931. Die Insektenfauna des Bottinger Marmors. Fortschritte der Geologie und
Palaeontologie, 9: 247-406.
Zeuner, F.E. & Manning, F.J. 1976. A monograph on fossil bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea).
Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology, 27: 149-268.
Zhang, J.-F. 1990. New fossil species of Apoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera). Acta Zootaxo-
nomica Sinica, 15: 83-91.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 1
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Lae Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
Case 3554
Anaphes Haliday, 1833 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation
of A. fuscipennis Haliday, 1833 as the type species
John T. Huber
Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, K.W. Neatby Building,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0C6 (e-mail: john.huber@agr.gc.ca)
John S. Noyes
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, London,
SW7 SBD, U.K.
Andrew Polaszek
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, London,
SW7 SBD, U.K.
Serguei Triapitsyn
Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA, 92521,
U.S.A.
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 80.9 and 81.1 of the Code,
is to designate Anaphes fuscipennis Haliday, 1833 (family MYMARIDAE) as the type
species of Anaphes Haliday, 1833. The nominal species A. punctum Shaw, 1798 is
currently the type species by subsequent designation and is placed on the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology, but no type specimen of A. punctum existed until
Huber (2011) showed conclusively that punctum belongs to the genus Camptoptera
Foerster, 1856 and designated a neotype. It is clearly unacceptable that the type
species of a genus does not belong to that genus so a request to the Commission
to change the type species to the only other originally included species of Anaphes,
A. fuscipennis, is presented, to maintain the current usage.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Hymenoptera; MYMARIDAE; Anaphes;
Anaphes fuscipennis; Anaphes punctum; biological control.
1. The genus Anaphes Haliday, 1833 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) currently includes
about 230 nominal species of MYMARIDAE, several of which are used for biological
control of other insects. As a result there is considerable basic and applied literature
on the genus, much of it listed in Huber (1992, 2006).
2. Haliday (1833, p. 269) first defined Anaphes in a key but without included
species. In a second part of the same paper, Haliday (1833, p. 346) established the
generic name Anaphes and included two species: Anaphes fuscipennis Haliday, 1833
and A. punctum (Shaw, 1798), transferred (implicitly) from Ichneumon.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 123
3. Westwood (1840, p. 78) listed A. punctum as a ‘typical’ (as explained on p. 1,
footnote) species of Anaphes. Undoubtedly, Westwood was influenced by Haliday’s
referral of A. punctum to Anaphes, but he chose punctum instead of fuscipennis as
‘typical’ probably because it was described earlier than fuscipennis, not because it
represented an ordinary looking species of the genus. Westwood’s choice was
accepted by many subsequent workers as a type species designation. The original
material of punctum was apparently not seen by either Haliday or Westwood
(Graham, 1982, p. 205) so its placement in Anaphes must have been based on the
short, inadequate original description and, in particular, on Shaw’s illustration. No
other worker had seen Shaw’s specimen either, except possibly A.H. Haworth
(1767-1833), a contemporary of Shaw. Graham (1982, p. 206) mentioned having
found a specimen labelled as punctum by Haworth and stated that it belonged to the
genus Camptoptera. That specimen is lost (Huber, 2011).
4. Ashmead (1904, p. 363) selected A. fuscipennis Haliday as the type of Anaphes —
this is the first unambiguous citation of a type species for Anaphes. If Ashmead was
aware of Westwood’s choice of punctum as ‘typical’ of Anaphes he ignored it,
justifiably so because neither Westwood nor Haliday provided any reason for
assigning punctum to Anaphes.
5. Gahan & Fagan (1923, p. 12) noted both type species designations for Anaphes
but did not select one in preference to the other.
6. Debauche (1948, p. 155) treated A. fuscipennis as the type species of Anaphes,
with a footnote explaining why he chose this species, and then (Debauche, 1949,
p. 6) argued forcefully for a change of type species but did not submit a petition to
the Commission.
7. The choice of type species of Anaphes seemed to have been resolved when
punctum was formally placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as the
type species of Anaphes (Opinion 729, BZN 22(2): 82-83, May 1965), based on a
petition by Doutt & Annecke (1963) that incorrectly stated (p. 134, 2c) that punctum
was the type species of Anaphes by original designation. In fact, punctum was not
cited as the type (or a typical) species until later (Westwood, 1840). Westwood’s
referral to punctum being typical was almost certainly meant to be adjectival, 1.e. a
good representative of the genus, rather than nomenclatural, i.e. fixing a type species,
a concept that was probably not thought of in 1840.
8. Hellén (1974, p. 23) continued to treat A. fuscipennis as type species and Huber
(1992, p. 26) supported previous workers to have the type species of Anaphes changed
to A. fuscipennis.
9. Although Graham (1982, p. 205) argued that punctum was a species of Anaphes
he nevertheless intended to petition the Commission for a change of type species to
A. fuscipennis because punctum could not be identified and no type material could be
found. In his words (p. 206) ‘it is unsatisfactory to have as type-species of the genus
a species that cannot be recognized’. Graham died in 1995 and never submitted a
petition.
10. Huber (2011, pp. 50-55) presented conclusive evidence that punctum is a species
of Camptoptera Foerster, 1856 not a species of Anaphes. He designated (p. 56) and
illustrated (p. 52) a neotype for [chneumon punctum, and transferred that species to
Camptoptera, thus leaving only one originally included species, A. fuscipennis, in
Anaphes. The type locality of the neotype is England, Hampshire, Romsey, Awbridge
124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
(collected in September 1981 by C. Vardy). The neotype is on a card mount and is
deposited in the Natural History Museum, London.
11. Anaphes is one of the most cited genera of MYMARIDAE because of the important
use of some of its member species in biological control of weevils (CURCULIONIDAE)
and leaf beetles (CHRYSOMELIDAE). Though most nominal species of Anaphes are
difficult to recognise, even with recourse to type specimens, the proposed type species,
A. fuscipennis, is one of the few that is readily identifiable. Graham (1982) designated
a lectotype for it.
12. Westwood’s type species designation of A. punctum for Anaphes, as confirmed
by ICZN Opinion 729, has not been generally accepted by entomologists. Strict
adherence to this designation would have important ramifications. Anaphes would
become the senior synonym of Camptoptera and the over 80 nominal species of
Camptoptera would have to be transferred to Anaphes, as new combinations.
Camptoptera species are known to be egg parasitoids mainly of beetles, e.g.
SCOLYTIDAE (Huber & Lin 2000). While there is almost no applied literature on species
of Camptoptera the genus is the largest in a group of genera distantly related to
Anaphes in the family group classification of MYMARIDAE proposed by Anneke and
Doutt (1960). Under their classification, Camptoptera is in the tribe OOCTONINI,
subfamily ALAPTINAE, whereas Anaphes is in the tribe ANAPHINI, subfamily
MYMARINAE. If the latter suddenly included Camptoptera species, renamed Anaphes if
Opinion 729 is not overturned, this would cause considerable confusion for
taxonomists. Concurrently, all the species currently included in Anaphes would have
to be transferred to the next available, reliable synonym, i.e. Patasson Walker, 1846.
Patasson was used as a subgenus of Anaphes from 1948 until the early 1990s (Huber
1992) and prior to that as a genus that was well known to biological control workers.
It represents a distinct subgroup of species within Anaphes, treated informally for the
past 20 years as the crassicornis group of species. If Patasson were now to be used for
all species of Anaphes it would be very confusing for biological control workers who
have successfully used certain species, either as Patasson or as Anaphes (Patasson),
for biological control. Panthus Walker, 1846, discussed briefly by Kryger (1950, p. 81)
and in detail by Graham (1982, p. 203), would not be suitable; the name has not been
used by taxonomists for over 60 years. Considering the importance of some species
of Anaphes in biological control, not only would nomenclatural stability be disrupted
but the use of the new combinations in the applied literature would be disruptive to
biological control workers.
13. To resolve the problem of having a type species that belongs to a different genus
from Anaphes it is recommended that the type species of Anaphes [gender masculine,
not neuter, as explained in Huber (1992, p. 33; 2006, p. 168)] be changed to A.
fuscipennis Haliday, 1833, following the lead of Ashmead (1904). Use of the
Commission’s plenary power under Article 81.1 to effect this change would pro-
mote nomenclatural stability and universality in the names discussed above (and,
importantly, their taxonomic concepts as well).
14. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside its previous designation (in Opinion 729)
of type species for the nominal genus Anaphes Haliday, 1833 and to designate
Anaphes fuscipennis Haliday, 1833 as the type species of the genus;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 125
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name fuscipennis
Haliday, 1833, as published in the binomen Anaphes fuscipennis (specific name
of the type species of Anaphes Haliday, 1833 as designated in (1) above);
(3) to amend the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for the
name Anaphes Haliday, 1833, to record that its gender is masculine and not
feminine, and its type species is Anaphes fuscipennis Haliday, 1833, and not
Ichneumon punctum Shaw, 1798 as designated in (1) above;
(4) to amend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the
name punctum Shaw, 1798, as published in the binomen Jchneumon punctum, to
record that it is not the name of the type species of Anaphes Haliday, 1833.
References
Annecke, D.P. & Doutt, R.L. 1961. The genera of the Mymaridae. Hymenoptera: Chalci-
doidea. Entomology Memoirs. Department of Agricultural Technical Services, Republic of
South Africa, 5: 1-71.
Ashmead, W.H. 1904. Classification of the chalcid flies of the superfamily Chalcidoidea, with
descriptions of new species in the Carnegie Museum, collected in South America by
Herbert H.H. Smith. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, 1(4): 225-555.
Debauche, H.R. 1948. Etude sur les Mymarommidae et les Mymaridae de la Belgique
(Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea). Mémoires du Musée Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique,
108: 1-248, pls. 1-24.
Debauche, H.R. 1949. Mymaridae (Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea). Exploration du Parc National
Albert, Mission G.F. de Witte (1933-35), 49: 1105, pls. 1-13.
Doutt, R.L. & Annecke, D.P. 1963. Mymar Curtis, 1829 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed
designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 479. Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature, 20: 134-136.
Haliday, A.H. 1833. Essay on the classification of the parasitic Hymenoptera of Britain, which
correspond with the Ichneumones minuti of Linnaeus. Entomologist Magazine, 1:
259-276, 333-350.
Gahan, A.B. & Fagan, M.M. 1923. The type species of the genera of Chalcidoidea or
chalcid-flies. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 124: 1-173.
Graham, M.W.R. de V. 1982. The Haliday collection of Mymaridae (Insecta, Hymenoptera,
Chalcidoidea) with taxonomic notes on some material in other collections. Proceedings of
the Royal Irish Academy B, 82: 189-243.
Hellén, W. 1974. Die Mymariden Finnlands (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Fauna Fennica, 25:
1-31.
Huber, J.T. 1992. The subgenera, species groups, and synonyms of Anaphes (Hymenoptera:
Mymaridae) with a review of the described Nearctic species of the fuscipennis group of
Anaphes s.s. and the described species of Anaphes (Yungaburra). Proceedings of the
Entomological Society of Ontario, 123: 23-110.
Huber, J.T. 2005. The gender and derivation of genus-group names in Mymaridae and
Mymarommatidae. Acta Societatis Zoologicae Bohemicae, 69: 167-183.
Huber, J.T. 2006 [2004]. Review of the described Nearctic species of the crassicornis group of
Anaphes s.s. (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario,
135: 3-8.
Huber, J.T. 2011. The identity and generic placement of Jchneumon punctum Shaw (Hyme-
noptera: Mymaridae), and designation of a neotype. Journal of Hymenoptera Research,
29: 47-63.
Huber, J.T. & Lin, N.-Q. 2000 (1999). World review of the Camptoptera group of genera
(Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario, 130:
21-65.
Kryger, J.P. 1950. The European Mymaridae comprising the genera known up to c. 1930.
Entomologiske Meddelelser, 26: 1-97.
126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
Shaw, G. 1798. Account, accompanied by a figure, of a minute Jchneumon. Transactions of the
Linnaean Society of London, 4: 189, pl.18, fig. 1.
Westwood, J.O. 1840. An introduction to the modern classification of insects; founded on the
natural habits and corresponding organisation of the different families, vol. I, i—xi, 1-587,
followed by Synopsis of the genera of British insects, pp. 1154, followed by Addenda to the
generic synopsis of British insects, pp. 155-158. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green &
Longmans, London.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 2
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 127
Case 3536
Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877 (Dinosauria, Ornithischia): proposed
replacement of the type species with Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 1887
Peter M. Galton
College of Naturopathic Medicine, University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT,
U.S.A. & Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New
Haven, CT, U.S.A. (e-mail: pgalton@bridgeport.edu)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 81.1 of the Code, is to
preserve stability in the taxonomy of stegosaurian dinosaurs by replacing Stegosaurus
armatus Marsh, 1877, the unidentifiable type species of the ornithischian dinosaur
genus Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877, with the very well represented nominal species
Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 1887, also from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation,
U.S.A. This genus is the basis for Stegosauria Marsh, 1877, STEGOSAUROIDEA Marsh,
1880, STEGOSAURIDAE Marsh, 1880 and sTEGOSAURINAE Marsh, 1880. Maidment et al.
(2008) listed seven putative autapomorphic characters for Stegosaurus and five for
the species Stegosaurus armatus in its current usage. However, the holotype of S.
armatus, which consists of an articulated series of 18 incomplete vertebrae from the
proximal half of the tail and a very large but incomplete dermal plate, shows none of
these diagnostic characters and so S. armatus must be considered a nomen dubium.
However, the holotype of S. stenops Marsh, 1887 shares all 12 autapomorphies with
S. armatus in its current usage, being based on an almost complete skeleton (USNM
4934), most of it still in the rock preserving almost natural articulation, which would
make S. stenops by far the best available species to replace S. armatus as type species
of Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Dinosauria; Ornithischia; Stegosauria; STEGO-
SAURIDAE; STEGOSAURINAE; Stegosaurus; S. armatus; S. stenops; western U.S.A.; Upper
Jurassic.
1. Marsh (1877, p. 513) established Stegosaurus armatus (and the order Stegosau-
ria) based on unfigured material (YPM 1850) from Morrison, Wyoming from what
is now known as the Morrison Formation, the source of all stegosaurs collected from
the U.S.A. Marsh (1880) also erected the sTEGOSAURIDAE. Subsequent workers
recognised Stegosaurus armatus without reference to the holotype that was rede-
scribed by Carpenter & Galton (2001; see also Galton 2010, fig. 1). YPM 1850
includes several incomplete vertebrae: 2 dorsals, caudal 1 or 2, an anterior caudal
vertebra, several blocks containing 16 incomplete articulated vertebrae from the
proximal half of the tail, and a very large but incomplete dermal plate.
2. Cope (1878) described, but did not illustrate, material from Garden Park near
Cafion City, Colorado, as Hypsirhophus discursus. The holotype (AMNH 5731) is a
dorsal vertebra and an incomplete anterior caudal neural arch. It was redescribed by
Carpenter (1998a), who tentatively considered it to be a valid taxon, as did Carpenter
128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
et al. (2001), based on characters of the dorsal vertebra. It has also been regarded as
a junior synonym of Stegosaurus armatus (Galton, 1990; Galton & Upchurch, 2004;
Maidment et al., 2008; Maidment, 2010) or as a valid species (Galton 2010).
3. Marsh (1879, p. 504) briefly described Stegosaurus ungulatus based on two
partial skeletons YPM 1853 (which may represent more than one individual, see
Carpenter & Galton, 2001) and YPM 1858 from YPM Quarries 12 and 11,
respectively, at Como Bluff near Como station, Wyoming. Bones of the syntypes
were figured by Marsh (1880, 188la, 1891, 1896), Lull (1910), Gilmore (1914),
Ostrom & McIntosh (1966, 1999), Carpenter & Galton (2001) and Galton (2001,
2010). S. ungulatus is currently regarded as a junior synonym of S. armatus (Galton,
1990; Galton & Upchurch, 2004; Maidment et al., 2008) or as a valid species (Galton
& Carpenter, 2001; Galton 2001, 2010, figs. 2b, 3a—e, k—o, r).
4. Marsh (1881b, p. 421) established Diracodon laticeps based on the characters of
teeth in a pair of maxillae from YPM Quarry 13, Como Bluff. Gilmore (1914)
considered a distal tail with spikes (USNM 4288) and three carpal bones in manus
referred to Diracodon laticeps by Marsh (1887, p. 416, pl. 9), and probably also the
holotype maxillae, to represent juvenile individuals of Stegosaurus stenops Marsh,
1887 (Gilmore, 1914, pp. 104, 108-109). The two incomplete holotype tooth-bearing
bones, YPM 1885, were first illustrated as dentaries by Carpenter & Galton (2001).
Diracodon laticeps Marsh, 1881b is regarded as a nomen dubium (Carpenter &
Galton, 2001) or, incorrectly, as a valid taxon (Bakker, 1986, pp. 188, 227) or a junior
synonym of either Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 1887 (Galton, 1990, 2010; Galton &
Upchurch, 2004) or S. armatus Marsh, 1877 (Maidment et al., 2008).
5. In 1887 Marsh figured a complete skull (USNM 4934) from Garden Park as
Stegosaurus stenops. The rest of the skeleton, which 1s still in more or less natural
articulation as found with 17 plates in position (see Gilmore, 1914; Czerkas, 1987)
is complete except for a few distal caudal vertebrae and the anterior pair of tail
spikes. The bones were described by Gilmore (1914) and illustrated by Marsh (1891,
1896) and Ostrom & McIntosh (1966, 1999). The skull was also described by Huene
(1914) and reconstructed in several views by Galton (1990), Sereno & Dong (1992)
and Galton & Upchurch (2004). Reconstructions of the skeleton, with the last part
of the tail and the anterior pair of tail spikes based on USNM 4714 from YPM
Quarry 13, Como Bluff (Gilmore 1914) were given by Czerkas (1987) and by Paul
(1992), Galton (1997, 2010) and Carpenter (2010) who also used data from a second
articulated, almost complete referred skeleton from Garden Park (DMNH 2818, see
Carpenter, 1998b, fig. 2 as found in quarry, 2007, fig. 2 for other side; found
stratigraphically within 10 m of the holotype). S. stenops is regarded either as a valid
species (Galton, 1990, 2010; Galton & Upchurch, 2004; Carpenter et al., 2001;
Carpenter, 2010) or as a junior synonym of S. armatus (Maidment et al., 2008;
Maidment, 2010).
6. Stegosaurus duplex Marsh, 1887 (p. 416) is based on a partial skeleton lacking
dermal armor (YPM 1858) from YPM Quarry 12 at Como Bluff, which was described
and/or illustrated by Marsh (188la, 1891, 1896), Lull (1910), Ostrom & McIntosh
(1966, 1999) and Carpenter & Galton (2001). S. duplex has been regarded as a junior
objective synonym of S. ungulatus Marsh, 1879 (Lull, 1910; Gilmore, 1914; Carpenter
& Galton, 2001; Galton, 2001, 2010; Maidment et al., 2008, p. 382), which in turn is
either a valid species or a junior synonym of S. armatus (see section 3).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 129
7. Marsh (1887) illustrated a tail spike, USNM 4937 from YPM Quarry 13 at
Como Bluff, as Stegosaurus sulcatus. Gilmore (1914) figured this tail spike in
articulation with its antimere that lacks sulci. Bakker (1988) showed that the
curvature of the very wide spike bases was too shallow to fit over the distal part of
the tail. This species is regarded as valid (Galton, 2010, figs. 3g, q), as a junior
synonym of S. armatus (Galton, 1990; Galton & Upchurch, 2004), or as a nomen
dubium (Maidment et al., 2008).
8. Gilmore (1914) described and diagnosed the species of Stegosaurus based on the
USNM holotypes of S. stenops and S. sulcatus, and reproduced line drawings of S.
ungulatus from Marsh (1896). He erected S. /ongispinus for a partial skeleton, UW
D54 (now UW 20503) from Alcova, Natrona County, Wyoming. This species is
considered to be a nomen dubium (Maidment et al., 2008) or valid (Galton, 1990,
2010; Carpenter et al., 2001; Galton & Upchurch, 2004); it is diagnosed by very
distinctive distal caudal vertebrae and two pairs of very elongate tail spikes with
sub-equal bases (Galton, 2010, figs. 3h—j, u, v).
9. Ostrom & McIntosh (1966, reprinted 1999) provided copies of the unpublished
lithographic plates of Stegosaurus prepared under the supervision of O.C. Marsh in the
1880s. They labelled specimens as S. armatus (referred braincase USNM 4936 from
Garden Park; braincase and associated postcrania described by Galton (2001) as S.
stenops), S. ungulatus (with S. duplex as a junior synonym), S. stenops and S. sulcatus.
10. Galton (1990; also Galton & Upchurch, 2004) noted that the holotype of
Stegosaurus armatus needed further preparation but considered that S. ungulatus was
probably a junior synonym, along with Hypsirhopus discursus, Stegosaurus sulcatus
and S. duplex. S. stenops and S. longispinus were regarded as separate valid species.
11. Carpenter et al. (2001) described Hesperosaurus mjosi based on a partial
skeleton (HMNH 001, cast DMNH 29431) from low in the Morrison Formation in
Johnson County, Wyoming. The holotype consists of a nearly complete, disarticu-
lated skull, a complete vertebral column, a partial left scapula and coracoid, ilia,
ischia, pubes, 11 dermal plates and four tail spikes. Carpenter et al. (2001) recognised
Stegosaurus armatus, S. ungulatus, S. stenops, S. longispinus and Hypsirophus
discursus as valid species. They also pointed out that the three genera of Morrison
stegosaurs have a restricted distribution within the Dinosaur Zones of Turner &
Peterson (1999), with Hesperosaurus limited to Zone 1, Stegosaurus to Zones 2 and
3, and Hypsirophus to Zone 4.
12. Based on a cladistic analysis of the species of Stegosauria they considered to be
valid, Maidment et al. (2008) gave seven autapomorphies for the genus Stegosaurus
sensu Maidment et al. (2008) and five for the species armatus, with Hypsirophus
discursus, Stegosaurus ungulatus (with S. duplex as a subjective junior synonym),
Diracodon laticeps, and Stegosaurus stenops as junior synonyms of S. armatus, and S.
sulcatus and S. longispinus as nomina dubia. Hesperosaurus mjosi and Wuerhosaurus
homheni Dong, 1973 (Lower Cretaceous, China, see Dong, 1990) were referred to
Stegosaurus as S. mjosi (Carpenter et al., 2001) and S. homheni (Dong, 1973) and also
by Maidment (2010).
13. Mossbrucker et al. (2009) noted that further preparation of the blocks of YPM
1850 showed that two fit together (indicated by *, Galton 2010, fig. 1b) to give taller
than predicted neural spines for mid-caudal centra, a possibly diagnostic character
for Stegosaurus armatus as defined by the holotype.
130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
14. Carpenter (2010) provided a revised diagnosis of Hesperosaurus mjosi (with
contrasting character states for Stegosaurus stenops) that included characters from
two referred skeletons from low in the Morrison Formation near Howe Ranch,
Wyoming (see Siber & Moéckli, 2009). He considered that there are too many
differences between the skeletons of H. mjosi and Stegosaurus stenops to support
referral to the same genus (see skeletal reconstructions in Carpenter, 2010, figs. 7a, b).
15. Maidment (2010) presented a historical survey of the stegosaurian species
described from the Morrison formation and repeated the systematic conclusions of
Maidment et al. (2008), 1.e. recognising Stegosaurus armatus (with Hypsirophus
discursus, Stegosaurus ungulatus, Diracodon laticeps and Stegosaurus stenops as junior
synonyms) and S. mjosi as valid taxa [also S. homheni (Dong, 1973)].
16. Galton (2010) noted that the holotype of Stegosaurus armatus displayed none
of the five putative autapomorphic characters listed by Maidment et al. (2008) for the
species armatus in its current usage and only one of the seven autapomorphic
characters for the genus Stegosaurus, i.e. the transverse process on the anterior caudal
vertebrae (except Cl and C2) projects ventrally rather than laterally. But the
holotype of Hesperosaurus mjosi also has this feature, hence YPM 1850 actually
displays no autapomorphic characters of S. armatus in its current usage and so S.
armatus as defined by the holotype should therefore be considered a nomen dubium.
Hypsirophus discursus Cope, 1878 and Diracodon affinis Marsh, 1881a, each with one
of the autapomorphic characters of the species armatus in its current usage, are
available as possible replacement type species for Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877. As noted
in previous sections, most of the other species of Stegosaurus available as a
replacement type species are based on incomplete, disarticulated partial skeletons
with no skull or field records, i.e. S. ungulatus (has braincase but at least two
individuals involved), S. duplex, S. sulcatus and S. longispinus (details in Galton,
2010). In marked contrast, the holotype skeleton (USNM 4934) of S. stenops is
almost complete, with a skull. It is mostly preserved in the rock as found, and there
is another comparable complete articulated skeleton from the type locality. Stego-
saurus stenops Marsh, 1887 displays all 12 autapomorphies determined for the
currently accepted concept of S. armatus Marsh, 1877 by Maidment et al. (2008), and
is) the only species showing the following two: alternating rows of dermal plates
down the midline for Stegosaurus (also in DMNH 2818), and nuchal dermal ossicles
for S. armatus (also in DMNH 2818). Consequently, Galton (2010) indicated the
need to petition the Commission to designate Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 1887 as the
new type species of Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877 to replace S. armatus Marsh, 1877. This
action would preserve stability by conserving Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877, Stegosauria
Marsh, 1877, STEGOSAURIDAE Marsh, 1880, sTEGOSAUROIDEA Marsh, 1880 and sTEGo-
SAURINAE Marsh, 1880.
17. Should the more elongate mid-caudal neural spines of YPM 1850 prove to be
a diagnostic character, as suggested by Mossbrucker et al. (2009), then this would be
diagnostic for the species armatus as defined by the holotype and YPM 1850 would
still lack any of the seven autapomorphies of the genus Stegosaurus in its current
usage (Maidment et al., 2008).
18. The possibility of designating the holotype of Stegosaurus stenops, USNM
4934, as a neotype for S. armatus Marsh, 1879 in place of the latter’s extant holotype
YPM 1850, thereby making the two names objective synonyms, has been considered.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 ist
However, it was rejected on the basis that the synonymy of the two species cannot be
proven and, because of the possible presence of a diagnostic character in the holotype
that could differentiate the species armatus from other species in the group, this could
possibly necessitate the erection of a new species for YPM 1850. The interests of
stability at the generic level are not served by having armatus as the type species of
Stegosaurus, because the incomplete and fragmentary holotype of this species lacks
the characters of the widely used concept of that genus. In the absence of a
Commission’s ruling, a new genus could be erected based on S. stenops, thereby
restricting Stegosaurus to S. armatus, and giving a new name to the generally
accepted concept of the genus Stegosaurus. Consequently, conserving the name of the
universally known genus Stegosaurus in its current usage is considered urgent and
important.
19. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the
nominal genus Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877 and to designate Stegosaurus stenops
Marsh, 1887 as the type species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877 (gender: masculine), type species Stegosaurus stenops
Marsh, 1887, as ruled in (1) above;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name stenops
Marsh, 1887, as published in the binomen Stegosaurus stenops (specific name
of the type species of Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877, as ruled in (1) above).
Institutional abbreviations: AMNH, American Museum of Natural History, New
York, U.S.A.; DMNH, Denver Museum of Nature and Science (formerly Denver
Museum of Natural History), Colorado, U.S.A.; HMNH, Hayashibara Museum of
Natural History, Okayama, Japan; USNM, National Museum of Natural History
(formerly United States National Museum), Washington, D.C., U.S.A.; UW,
Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, U.S.A;
and YPM, Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven,
Connecticut, U.S.A.
References
Abel, O. 1919. Die Stamme der Wirbeltiere. 914 pp. De Gruyter, Berlin & Leipzig.
Bakker, R.T. 1986. The dinosaur heresies: new theories unlocking the mystery of the dinosaurs
and their extinction. 482 pp. William Morrow, New York.
Bakker, R.T. 1988. Review of the Late Cretaceous nodosauroid Dinosauria Denversaurus
schlessmani, a new armor-plated dinosaur from the latest survivor of the nodosaurians,
with comments on stegosaur-nodosaur relationships. Hunteria, 1: 1-23.
Carpenter, K. 1998a. Armor of Stegosaurus stenops, and the taphonomic history of a new
specimen from Garden Park, Colorado. Modern Geology, 23: 127-144.
Carpenter, K. 1998b. Vertebrate biostratigraphy of the Morrison Formation near Cafion City,
Colorado. Modern Geology, 23: 407-426.
Carpenter, K. 2007. How to make a fossil: Part 1 — Fossilizing bone. Journal of Paleontological
Sciences, 1: 1-10.
Carpenter, K. 2010. Species concepts in North American stegosaurs. Swiss Journal of
Geosciences, 103: 155-162.
132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
Carpenter, K. & Galton, P.M. 2001. Othniel Charles Marsh and the myth of the eight-spiked
Stegosaurus. Pp. 76-102 in Carpenter, K. (Ed.), The armored dinosaurs. Indiana Univer-
sity Press, Bloomington.
Carpenter, K., Miles, C.A. & Cloward, K. 2001. New primitive stegosaur from the Morrison
Formation, Wyoming. Pp. 55—75 in Carpenter, K. (Ed.), The armored dinosaurs. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington.
Cope, E.D. 1878. A new genus of Dinosauria from Colorado. American Naturalist, 12: 181.
Czerkas, S.A. 1987. A reevaluation of the plate arrangement on Stegosaurus stenops. Pp. 83-99
in Czerkas, S.J. & Olson, E.C. (Eds.), Dinosaurs past and present, Volume 2. University of
Washington Press, Seattle.
Dong, Z.-M. 1973. Dinosaurs from Wuerho. Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and
Paleoanthropology, Memoirs, 11: 45-52.
Dong, Z.-M. 1990. Stegosaurs of Asia. Pp. 255-268 in Carpenter, K. & Currie, P.J. (Eds.),
Dinosaur systematics. Approaches and _ perspectives. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Galton, P.M. 1990. Stegosauria. Pp. 435-455 in Weishampel, D.B., Dodson, P. & Osmdlska,
H. (Eds.), The Dinosauria, Ist Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Galton, P.M. 1997. Stegosaurs. Pp. 291-306 in Farlow, J.A. & Brett-Surman, M.K. (Eds.), The
complete dinosaur. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Galton, P. M. 2001. Endocranial casts of the plated dinosaur Stegosaurus (Upper Jurassic,
western USA): A complete undistorted cast and the original specimens of Othniel Charles
Marsh. Pp. 455-484 in Carpenter, K. (Ed.), The armored dinosaurs. Indiana University
Press, Bloomington.
Galton, P.M. 2010. Species of plated dinosaur Stegosaurus (Morrison Formation, Upper
Jurassic) of western USA: new type species designation needed. Swiss Journal of
Geosciences, 103: 187-198.
Galton, P.M. & Upchurch, P. 2004. Stegosauria. Pp. 343-362 in Weishampel, D.B., Dodson,
P. & Osmolska, H. (Eds.), The Dinosauria, 2nd edition. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Gilmore, C.W. 1914. Osteology of the armoured Dinosauria in the United States National
Museum, with special reference to the genus Stegosaurus. United States National Museum,
Bulletin, 89: i—xi, 1-143, pls. 1-36.
Hay, O.P. 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. United
States Geological Survey, Bulletin, 179: 1-495.
Huene, F. v. 1914. Uber die Zweistammigkeit der Dinosaurier, mit Beitragen zur Kenntnis
einiger Schadel. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und Paldontologie, Beilageband,
37: 577-589.
Lull, R.S. 1910. Stegosaurus ungulatus Marsh, recently mounted at the Peabody Museum of
Yale University. American Journal of Science, (4)30: 361-377.
Maidment, S.C.R. 2010. Stegosauria: a historical review of the body fossil record and
phylogenetic relationships. Swiss Journal of Geosciences, 103: 199-210.
Maidment, S.C.R., Norman, D.B., Barrett, P.M. & Upchurch, P. 2008. Systematics and
phylogeny of Stegosauria (Dinosauria: Ornithischia). Journal of Systematic Palaeon-
tology, 6: 367-407.
Marsh, O.C. 1877. A new order of extinct Reptilia (Stegosauria) from the Jurassic of the
Rocky Mountains. American Journal of Science, (3)14: 34-35.
Marsh, O.C. 1879. Notice of new Jurassic reptiles. American Journal of Science, (3)18: 501-505.
Marsh, O.C. 1880. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs. Part III. American
Journal of Science, (3)19: 253-259.
Marsh, O.C. 1881a. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs. Part IV: Spinal cord,
pelvis, and limbs of Stegosaurus. American Journal of Science, (3)21: 167-170.
Marsh, O.C. 1881b. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs. Part V. American
Journal of Science, (3)21: 417-423.
Marsh, O.C. 1882. Classification of the Dinosauria. American Journal of Science, (3)23: 81-86.
Marsh, O.C. 1887. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs. Part [X: The skull and
dermal armor of Stegosaurus. American Journal of Science, (3)34: 413-417.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 133
Marsh, O.C. 1891. Restoration of Stegosaurus. American Journal of Science, (3)42: 179-181.
Marsh, O. C. 1896. The dinosaurs of North America. United States Geological Survey, Annual
Report, 16(1894—-95): 133-244.
Mossbrucker, M. T., Bakker, R. T. & Prueher, L. 2009. New information regarding the
holotype of Stegosaurus armatus (Marsh, 1877). Symposium on Stegosauria. June § and 9.
Scientific Meeting at Sauriermuseum Aathal, Switzerland, Abstracts: 9.
Ostrom, J.A. & McIntosh, J.S. 1966. Marsh's dinosaurs. The collections from Como Bluff. xiv,
388 pp. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Ostrom, J.A. & McIntosh, J.S. 1999. Marsh’s dinosaurs. The collections from Como Bluff: With
a new forward by Peter Dodson and a historical update by Clifford A. Miles and David W.
Hamblin. xxiv, 388 pp. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Paul, G. 1992. The arrangement of the plates in the first complete Stegosaurus, from Garden
Park. Tracks in Time, Garden Park Paleontological Society, 3(1): 1-2.
Sereno, P.C. & Dong, Z.-M. 1992. The skull of the basal stegosaur Huayangosaurus taibaii and
a cladistic diagnosis of Stegosauria. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 12: 318-343.
Siber, H.J. & Méckli, U. 2009. The stegosaurs of the Sauriermuseum Aathal. 56 pp.
Sauriermuseum, Aathal.
Turner, C.E. & Peterson, F. 1999. Biostratigraphy of dinosaurs in the Upper Jurassic Morrison
Formation of the Western Interior, U.S.A. Jn Gillette, D. (Ed.), Vertebrate Paleontology
in Utah. Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication, 99-1: 77-114.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name Boccardia proboscidea
Hartman, 1940 (Annelida, SPIONIDAE)
(Case 3520; see BZN 67: 203-210)
Kristian Fauchald
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, MRC 163,
Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. (e-mail: fauchald@si.edu)
Vasily I. Radashevsky
A.V. Zhirmunsky Institute of Marine Biology, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok 690041, Russia (e-mail: radashevsky@gmail.com)
Leslie H. Harris
Research & Collections, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County,
Los Angeles, California 90007, U.S.A. (e-mail: exogone@hotmail.com)
The application by Radashevsky & Harris (BZN 67: 203-210) asked for conservation
of the specific name Boccardia proboscidea Hartman, 1940, used for a widely
dispersed mudworm (family sPIONIDAE) described from California and requested that
all previous type designations for B. proboscidea be set aside in favour of a neotype.
Part of their rationale for designating a neotype was based on the fact that
while Hartman (1940) stated that the holotype was deposited at the United States
National Museum (USNM), the vial Hartman sent to the USNM contained
12 specimens.
However, designation of a neotype would limit the name-bearing types of B.
proboscidea to one specimen and deprive all the other specimens of this status. Such
an act would contradict Hartman’s concept of type specimens which was based
on the Ist and 2nd editions of the ICZN. Prior to 1999 the Code did not require
a type specimen. Only after 1999 were holotype or syntypes required to be designated
for any newly-described species-group taxon (Articles 72.2, 72.3 of the current
Code).
We do not know exactly why Hartman listed the multiple-specimen type lot of
B. proboscidea as ‘the holotype’. In a letter dated 19 February 1937 to Dr Waldo
Schmitt, Curator of Invertebrates, USNM, she said ‘I have sent off to you today,
eight vials containing polychaetous specimens designated as holotypes’. In his return
letter dated 27 February 1937, Dr Schmitt replied ‘In a few cases you had more than
one worm in a bottle marked holotype. Of course, we shall select the nicest looking
one for the holotype, but in the future it would be better if you were to specifically
designate one species [sic; /apsus for specimen] of a lot as holotype either by tying on
a bit of thread or else putting it in a separate vial’ (excerpts of the Hartman-Schmitt
correspondence provided courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution Archives). Besides
B. proboscidea, other spionid species with multi-specimen ‘holotypes’ are Polydora
amarincola Hartman, 1936 (USNM 20214, 5 specimens, status listed as type in the
USNM catalogue), Polydora brachycephala Hartman, 1936 (USNM 20215, 4 speci-
mens, status listed as syntype in the USNM catalogue), Pygospio californica Hartman
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 135
1936 (USNM 20219, 4 specimens, status listed as type in the USNM catalogue),
Rhynchospio arenincola Hartman, 1936 (USNM 20221, 4 specimens, status errone-
ously listed as paratype in the USNM catalogue), and Streblospio lutincola Hartman,
1936 (USNM 20220, 15 specimens, status erroneously listed as paratype in the
USNM catalogue). These problematic cases will be described in an upcoming
catalogue of types of the spionid polychaetes deposited in North American museums
(Harris & Radashevsky, in preparation).
Joint work and personal collaboration with Olga Hartman by one of us (KF) and
extensive study of Hartman’s personal papers preserved in the LACM by another
(LH) unequivocally shows that Hartman believed a series of type specimens better
represented a new species than a single holotype. Single specimen holotypes were
designated by Hartman mainly when only one individual was available for exami-
nation. We therefore assume that her designation of multiple-specimen type lots was
due to Hartman’s personal concept of types. Why Hartman called these multiple-
specimen lots holotypes instead of syntypes, as she did in some other cases, remains
unknown.
Hartman stated in several early papers that she deposited the holotypes of newly
described species in the United States National Museum in Washington, D.C. and
split the paratypes between the Zoological Museum of the University of California,
Berkeley (where she received her Ph.D.) and the California Academy of Sciences, San
Francisco. Around 1943 the bulk of the University of California polychaete
collection, including type material, was given to the Allan Hancock Foundation,
University of Southern California (AHF). As previously mentioned by Radashevsky
& Harris (BZN 67: 203-210), there is evidence in Hartman’s personal papers and
collection labels (LACM-AHF Polychaete Collection archives, unpublished) to show
that LACM-AHF POLY 1226 was considered by Hartman to be a type lot for B.
proboscidea. An early Allan Hancock Foundation type inventory made by Hartman
includes ‘Boccardia proboscidea Hartman AHF no. 117 [cotype]’. The specimens in
this lot and in the ‘holotype’ lot (USNM 20217) were all collected by Hartman on 4
July 1934, from vertical burrows in intertidal sandstone at Caspar, Mendocino
County, California. Both lots have been examined by VIR and found to include
specimens of the same species in good condition. Under Article 72.4.1.1 of the current
Code (‘For a nominal species or subspecies established before 2000, any evidence,
published or unpublished, may be taken into account to determine what specimens
constitute the type series.’) these two samples represent valid type material of the
species.
Article 75.5 of the Code was incorrectly used by Radashevsky & Harris (BZN 67:
205) to justify designation of neotype for B. proboscidea. It refers to a situation when
‘the taxonomic identity of a nominal species-group taxon cannot be determined from
its existing name-bearing type (i.e. its name is a nomen dubium), and stability or
universality are threatened thereby’. As Hartman’s types do exist in good condition
with the problem being the uncertainty of which specimen is the holotype (i.e. the
name-bearing specimen), we believe that the best solution about these types would be
to leave them as syntypes. This would also be in agreement with what we feel was
Hartman’s original intent.
Consequently, we here suggest rephrasing the proposal by Radashevsky & Harris
(BZN 67: 203-210) in the following manner:
136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
13. The International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power:
(a) to rule that the name proboscidea Hartman, 1940, as published in the
binomen Boccardia proboscidea, be given precedence over californica
Treadwell, 1914, as published in the binomen Polydora californica,
whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) to suppress the name californica Fewkes, 1889, as published in the
binomen Spio californica, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but
not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) proboscidea Hartman, 1940, as published in the binomen Boccardia
proboscidea and as defined by syntypes USNM 20217 and LACM-AHF
POLY 1226, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over
californica Treadwell, 1914, as published in the binomen Polydora califor-
nica, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) californica Treadwell, 1914, as published in the binomen Polydora califor-
nica, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over
proboscidea Hartman, 1940, as published in the binomen Boccardia
proboscidea and as defined by syntypes USNM 20217 and LACM-AHF
POLY 1226, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name californica Fewkes, 1889, as published in the binomen Spio
californica and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.
Comments on the proposed designation of a neotype for the nominal species
Chionobas chryxus Doubleday, 1849 (currently Oeneis chryxus; Insecta,
Lepidoptera, NYMPHALIDAE)
(Case 3495; see BZN 67: 121-128)
(1) Jonathan P. Pelham
Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture, Box 353010 University of
Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 3010, U.S.A. (e-mail: zapjammer@frontier.com)
I strongly disagree that stability is served by use of the plenary power to suppress the
validly designated lectotype of Chionobas chryxus and replace it with a neotype.
1. The lectotype of Oeneis chryxus designated by Shepard (1984) represents the
taxon as it has been understood since its description. The statement in the abstract of
the petition ‘the original figure perfectly matches males of one of the two species into
which the species was later divided’ suggests widespread acceptance that there are
two species when actually the matter of this species division into two is based only on
two papers in the same publication.
2. Only one paper has been published to date that utilises the nomenclature put
forth by the authors in 2006 (Kondla, 2010) and that paper is by one of those authors.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 137
3. The author of the petition claims that the lectotype is indeterminate, but this is
a subjective matter not supported by the views of subsequent researchers. There is no
reason to suppose that the male figured in Doubleday & Hewitson, apparently lost,
is not the same species as the lectotype, possibly even collected with it, and such has
been held to be the case since the lectotype was designated. Most researchers are
completely unaware of the issue and it seems prudent to await serious consideration
from a broad spectrum of naturalists before any decision requiring the plenary power
is rendered.
4. It is my opinion that the designation of a neotype through the exercise of the
plenary power is unwarranted in the face of what remains a very limited view. It does
not stabilise an uncertain nomenclature because at this time there is no uncertain
nomenclature.
Additional references
Kondla, N.G. 2010. Section 2. Butterflies. Pp. 163-192 in Pohl, G.R., Anweiler, G.G., Schmidt,
B.C. & Kondla, N.G. An annotated list of the Lepidoptera of Alberta, Canada. ZooKeys,
38: 1-549.
(2) Andrew D. Warren
McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural
History, University of Florida, SW 34th Street and Hull Road, P.O. Box 112710,
Gainesville, FL 32611-2710, U.S.A. (e-mail: andy@butterfliesofamerica.com)
There is no ‘exceptional need’ for a neotype of Chionobas chryxus. The petitioner
claims that there are two species of ‘Oeneis chryxus’ occurring in Colorado and
elsewhere in the Rocky Mountains of western North America. This hypothesis was
recently proposed (Scott, 2006), and has never been tested through rigorous
morphological study or molecular techniques. Subsequent authors dealing with the
North American fauna have not followed Scott’s nomenclature (with the single
exception of Kondla (2010)). Much of the wording in Scott’s petition portrays as
‘fact’ concepts that have never been corroborated by detailed research. Many
statements presented as fact about ‘two species’ in the southern Rocky Mountains on
pages 125-127 of the petition are debatable, and some are erroneous. My own
experience with Oeneis in Colorado (where I grew up collecting them regularly,
including the same populations Scott has based his hypotheses upon), as well as
current insight gleaned from curating 3,376 specimens of the Oeneis chryxus complex
in the collections of the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida
Museum of Natural History, University of Florida [MGCL], suggest that Scott has
badly misinterpreted the actual patterns of geographic variation in Oeneis chryxus.
There seem to be two taxonomic entities within Oeneis chryxus in Colorado, but
my preliminary analysis of MGCL material indicates only one species is likely to be
present. This same analysis indicates that the high-elevation entity O. chryxus
altacordillera Scott from Colorado does not occur to the north in the Rocky
Mountains of Wyoming, Montana and Alberta. In this region, only one taxon is
138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
present, which has always been regarded as Oeneis chryxus. O. chryxus altacordillera
does not occur in Alberta (none of 155 specimens examined from Alberta in MGCL
could be considered altacordillera), and its occurrence in Montana and Wyoming is
doubtful. Thus, there should be no confusion over the identity of Shepard’s (1984)
lectotype for Chionobas chryxus, very probably from Alberta.
Much of Scott’s argument for the need of a neotype is based on the hypothesis that
females of O. chryxus are not useful for identifying subspecies (or sibling species as
claimed by Scott). In my experience, this is simply not the case. Females of O. chryxus
demonstrate as much geographic variation as males, and are useful for identifying
subspecies-level taxa, including altacordillera (as defined by Scott). Most impor-
tantly, all authors prior to Scott (Case 3495, who suggested Wyoming) agree that
Shepard’s (1984) lectotype female likely originated in the Rocky Mountains of
Alberta.
My analysis of the Oeneis chryxus group, together with recent literature, leads me
to believe that Scott’s hypotheses about species-level relationships in the group are
almost certainly incorrect. Most of the statements presented as facts about the
supposed species diversity of the group in the southern Rocky Mountains are
untested hypotheses, and have not been widely accepted in the recent literature. Most
importantly, if Scott’s altacordillera does not occur as far north as the Rocky
Mountains of Alberta, there should be no confusion over the identity of any female
Oeneis chryxus from this region or of Shepard’s (1984) lectotype from the Alberta
Rockies, so therefore there is absolutely no need for a neotype.
Additional references
Kondla, N.G. 2010. Section 2. Butterflies. Pp. 163-192 in Pohl, G.R., Anweiler, G.G., Schmidt,
B.C. & Kondla, N.G. An annotated list of the Lepidoptera of Alberta, Canada. ZooKeys,
38: 1-549.
(3) John V. Calhoun
977 Wicks Drive, Palm Harbor, Florida, 34684—4656, U.S.A. and McGuire Center
for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A. (e-mail: bretcall @verizon.net)
This case is based on the premise that the nominal species Chionobas chryxus can not
be identified from its existing name-bearing type, and stability or universality are
thereby threatened. With the exception of Scott (2006), in which Oeneis calais
altacordillera was described, the identity of C. chryxus has remained virtually
uncontested since it was named and figured in 1849. Kondla (2010), who co-authored
portions of Scott (2006), is one of the few authors to subsequently employ the name
Oeneis calais altacordillera. Based on recommendations from other lepidopterists,
Pelham (2008) listed both calais and altacordillera as subspecies of chryxus. Holland
(2010) also treated altacordillera as a subspecies of C. chryxus, which he characterised
as a ‘plastic taxon’. Warren et al. (2010) treat altacordillera as a junior subjective
synonym of nominotypical chryxus.
There seems to be little justification at this time to set aside the valid lectotype of
C. chryxus in response to the recognition of a poorly understood and contentious
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 199
taxon. The lectotype specimen has been accepted as the type of Chionobas chryxus for
over 80 years and is still considered by the majority of lepidopterists to represent this
nominal species. I therefore perceive no imminent threat to nomenclatural stability
which would warrant exercising Art. 81 in accordance with Art. 75.5 of the Code.
Supplemental remarks
I attempted by various means to locate the male specimen that was figured by
Doubleday (1849). Because Edward Doubleday often exchanged specimens with the
French entomologist Jean B.A.D. de Boisduval, I recently asked staff at the National
Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.) to search
that collection for the missing male (it was not found). With the help of library staff
at NHM, I also recently searched, without success, for references to C. chryxus
among the manuscripts of Edward Doubleday.
Scott (para. 10) perceives Article 72.4.1.1 to be subservient to Article 72.4.1, thus
he will accept the lectotype as valid only if these articles are interpreted indepen-
dently. According to ICZN (1999, p. XIII), each article in the current edition of
the Code ‘consists of one or more mandatory provisions, which are sometimes
accompanied by Recommendations and/or illustrative Examples.’ This establishes
that all provisions must be considered, but does not indicate that subsections are
universally subservient. The insertion of 72.4.1.1 into the fourth edition of Code
broadens the scope of 72.4.1 and eliminates the need to designate a neotype in many
instances. External evidence can be valuable when attempting to determine the type
series of a nominal taxon for which there was no written description (as in C.
chryxus). The illustration of a single specimen does not remove the possibility that the
author’s concept of that taxon was based upon multiple specimens. However, I feel
that Article 72.4.1 lacks the necessary language to clearly embrace such circum-
stances, thereby resulting in confusion over the application of 72.4.1.1 (as demon-
strated by Case 3495). Article 72.4 should be modified to rectify this deficiency.
Although Scott is reluctant to accept the lectotype pursuant to Article 72.4.1.1,
ample published and unpublished evidence suggests that this specimen was a syntype
of C. chryxus. In addition to the evidence reviewed by Scott, Butler (1868) did not list
any other species of Oeneis (=Chionobas) in the British Museum from ‘Rocky
Mountains’ that were available to Doubleday. Although Butler (p. 162) listed
Oeneis uhleri (Reakirt, 1866) from ‘Rocky Mountains’, he restricted the locality to
‘Colorado Territory’ and did not denote that the British Museum possessed any
specimens. This species was first collected in 1864 (Reakirt, 1866, p. 122) and the
oldest specimens in NHM, from Colorado and Utah, are dated 1900 (B. Huertas,
pers. comm.).
Additional references
Holland, R. 2010. A new subspecies of Oeneis chryxus (Nymphalidae: Satyridae) from south
central New Mexico. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society, 64: 161-165.
Kondla, N.G. 2010. Section 2. Butterflies. Pp. 163-192 in Pohl, G.R., Anweiler, G.G., Schmidt,
B.C., & Kondla, N.G., An annotated list of the Lepidoptera of Alberta, Canada.
ZooKeys, 38: 1-549.
Pelham, J.P. 2008. A catalogue of the butterflies of the United States and Canada. With a
complete bibliography of the descriptive and systematic literature. Journal of Research on
the Lepidoptera, 40: i-xiv, 1-652.
140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
Reakirt, T. 1866. Coloradian butterflies. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of
Philadelphia, 6: 122-151.
Warren, A.D., Davis, K., Grishin, N.V., Pelham, J.P. & Strangeland, M. 2010. Butterflies of
America. Website, http://butterfliesofamerica.com (Accessed 14 June 2011).
Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger,
1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines)
(Case 3463; see BZN 66: 34-50, 80-87, 169-186, 274-290, 352-357; 67: 71-90,
170-178, 246-254, 319-331; 68: 72-77)
J. Frazier
Department of Vertebrate Zoology — Amphibians & Reptiles, National Museum of
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, PO Box 37012, Washington DC
20013-7012, U.S.A. (e-mail: kurma@shentel.net)
Pat Matyot
Seychelles Islands Foundation, Board of Trustees, clo PO Box 321, Victoria, Mahé,
Seychelles (e-mail: pat.matyot@sbe.sc)
Hoogmoed (BZN 68: 72-77) criticised the paper in Zootaxa by Frazier & Matyot
(2010), calling for their conclusions to be considered void. The Zootaxa paper
provided a detailed compilation and evaluation of numerous historic and contem-
porary sources, considered results of consultations with diverse colleagues, and made
two fundamental conclusions: (1) the locality for RMNH 3231, the lectotype of
Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831, 1s uncertain; it is unlikely to be Aldabra Atoll, but is
likely to be Mahé, granitic Seychelles; (2) the combination of apparent time and
locality of collection, together with the unique haplotype, raises a possibility that the
specimen is an extinct Seychelles tortoise — not an Aldabra tortoise. Despite his
6-page comment, Hoogmoed provided no new information to remove uncertainty
about the provenance and taxonomic identity of the specimen, and he continues to
ignore recognised sources of error. Only a brief summary of the extensive details
presented in Frazier & Matyot (2010) will be given herein, where we limit the
discussion to the evidential basis of the issues.
The locality of the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831
There is no evidence that J.-J. Dussumier, considered to be the collector of the
lectotype, ever visited Aldabra, but he is definitely known to have made collections
on Mahé, in the granitic Seychelles, at a time (possibly as early as 1823) when native
Seychelles tortoises were still in existence. Dussumier is also known to have visited
the Mascarene Islands of Mauritius and Ile Bourbon (La Réunion), where thousands
of tortoises from the granitic Seychelles, as well as from Aldabra, had been imported.
For example, in his summary of historic records, Bour (1984, p. 302) reported that
‘from 1773 to 1810, at least 25 ships carrying Tortoises from central Seychelles
Islands entered Mauritius’, adding in a footnote that ‘a ship could load from 500 to
6000 Tortoises’ (though the latter figure is questionable). According to Toussaint
(1965, p. 56), in December 1808 the Favorite was still transporting a cargo of land
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 14]
tortoises from Seychelles to Mauritius; likewise, in October 1807 the Amazone carried
a load of land tortoises from Seychelles to Réunion (p. 61). A.M.C. Duméril, G.
Bibron and A.H.A. Dumeéril, herpetologists at the Paris Museum where Dussumier’s
collections were received, recorded his tortoises from Anjouan (Comores) and
Seychelles — there is no mention of any Dussumier tortoise from Aldabra.
Gray’s original (1831) description of 7. dussumieri is confused for many reasons;
while he evidently saw a small tortoise in Leiden sometime before 1831, it is unclear
— among other things — what data accompanied it, a fact recognised by Hoogmoed
(BZN 68: 74). Several years later, in their section on 7. indica, Temminck & Schlegel
(1834, p. 75) included the statement “Cet établissement a regu du Musée de Paris un
autre individu trés-jeune, communiqué sous l’épithéte de Test. Dussumieri, rapporté
par le voyageur dont elle porte le nom, de l’ile Aldebra située au nord du canal de
Mosambique.’ [‘This institution {The Leiden Museum} has received from the Paris
Museum another very young individual, sent under the name of Test. Dussumieri,
brought by the traveler whose name it bears, from Aldabra Island situated in the
north of the Mozambique Channel.’]. As Hoogmoed explained (BZN 68: 74 and
following pages), it is unknown on what Temminck & Schlegel based this statement.
Originally, Hoogmoed (BZN 66: 354-356; Hoogmoed et al., 2010) claimed that the
lectotype has good locality data based on the assertion that the old label that
accompanies RMNH 3231 was the ‘original label’ from Paris, but he now admits
(BZN 68: 77) that ‘there is a good chance that the old label’ is not the original, and
probably postdates both Gray and Temminck & Schlegel. He also acknowledges
various other uncertainties, including unknown collection management practices
during the early years of the Leiden Museum, beginning in 1820 and for the next few
decades: ‘About the early history of its management we know little and it even is not
quite certain when the present numbering system for reptiles and amphibians jointly
was started, although there are some clues to that’ (p. 76). In addition, he recognises
(p. 77) that ‘the name Test. dussumieri, mentioned by Temminck & Schlegel (1834)
and Gray (1831 b) does not appear in the register or on the label’. Nonetheless, he
(BZN 68: 72-77) continues to defend his earlier claim that the specimen’s locality is
unequivocally known. The basis for his assertion now rests on Temminck &
Schlegel’s (1834) above-quoted statement, although Hoogmoed acknowledges that
the source of this is unknown. Hoogmoed fixedly disregards, among other things, a
fundamental point explained by Matyot (BZN 66: 352): there is no evidence that
Dussumier ever visited Aldabra atoll, or that he provided any collections from
Aldabra.
Hoogmoed’s faith in the purported provenance of the specimen based on a passage
made years after the original description might be understandable if there were no
contradictory evidence. If Temminck & Schlegel’s account were consistent with the
localities reported by Dussumier and/or records of his specimens in the institution
where his collections were originally received (Paris Museum), it would help build a
case for the locality of the lectotype. However, Temminck & Schlegel’s statement
stands alone and in contrast to historic information about Dussumier’s itineraries
and collections. As much as Temminck & Schlegel (1834) give an authoritative
account of what was known of chelonians at that time, Hoogmoed does not consider
the dangers of erroneous documentation, a problem that has happened too many
times in the past to be ignored — regardless of the scientific authority. This would not
142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
be the first time Temminck’s name has been associated with incorrect localities and
erroneous data regarding Dussumier’s travels. Desmarest (1826, pp. 215-216),
reviewing Temminck’s Monographie de Mammalogies, drew attention to several such
mistakes: “M. Temminck a été mal informé, pour l’indication des localités qu’il
attribue aux animaux qu'il décrit, ou pour celle des lieux ot il fait aller les voyageurs
naturalistes.... c’est ainsi qu’il fait voyager dans ces iles {les iles Mariannes} M.
Dussumier, quoique ce négociant n’y soit jamais allé. . .” [“Mr. Temminck has been
misinformed regarding the localities that he attributes to the animals he describes, or
the places that he claims the naturalist-travellers called at. . . it is thus that he claims
Mr. Dussumier travelled to these islands {the Marianas}, whereas this merchant
never went there. . .’]. Moreover, Temminck is known to have made other serious
mistakes in specimen localities and other associated data, some of which were
described by Chris Smeenk, former Curator of Mammals of the Leiden Museum.
Smeenk (2009) did a detailed evaluation of historic and bibliographic information
concerning one of Captain Cook’s Australian possums Pseudocheirus peregrinus
(Boddaert, 1785) and he stated flatly (p. 733): ‘Temminck (1824) has added to the
confusion’, explaining several errors and the evident confounding of collectors and
localities by this 19th century ornithologist. Smeenk’s summary remark (p. 737) is
critical: ‘In this connection, it should be emphasized that many, if not most, early
specimens in the Leiden Museum are insufficiently documented.’
Were RMNH 3231 just any specimen, the uncertainty about the locality might not
be so important, but this is a lectotype, designated by opponents of Case 3463 to be
the name-bearing type of the Aldabra tortoise. It hardly needs explaining further the
tremendous, and unnecessary, confusion that would be caused by using a name-
bearing type that has an uncertain provenance — worse yet if it turned out to have a
locality totally inappropriate to the taxon in question. Myriad biological studies have
faced serious problems for having relied on erroneous specimen documentation (e.g.
Rasmussen & Prys-Jones, 2003; Boessenkool et al., 2010).
As Dunn & Stuart (1951, p. 677) eloquently explained: ‘Just as reexamination of a
type specimen may bring to light errors in the original description or characters not
mentioned in it, so reexamination of the data accompanying the type specimen or
related to it (original labels, collector’s notes, or itineraries, etc.) may add precision
to or even alter the type locality as given in the original description.’ Article 76.2 of
the Code makes it very clear that the precise locality of a lectotype is determined by
the place of origin, not necessarily previously published statements. More and more
speculations about what might, or might not, have happened to RMNH 3231 will not
turn an equivocal locality into a known fact.
The identity of the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831
With the evidence that Dussumier’s tortoise was most likely collected in the granitic
Seychelles at a time when the native tortoises were still extant, or possibly in the
Mascarene Islands to where both Seychelles and Aldabra tortoises had been shipped,
its taxonomic identity cannot be assumed. To date, no one who has declared that the
lectotype is an Aldabra tortoise has provided a single basic measurement, much less
a description of the diagnostic characters used to distinguish it from extinct
Seychelles tortoise taxa.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 143
Austin et al. (2003) have done the only genetic study on RMNH 3231, based on a
336-bp fragment of mtDNA. They reported this specimen as haplotype B, with two
nucleotide substitutions from the common haplotype A of the Aldabra tortoise; out
of the 37 non-Madagascan specimens on which they reported, RMNH 3231 has a
unique haplotype. Although this does not prove that the lectotype is from a different
lineage, it contrasts with the lack of genetic variation in 915-pb fragments of mtDNA
that Balmer et al. (2010) found in a sample of 112 tortoises on Aldabra. Notably,
while Austin et al. concluded (p. 1422), with very careful language, that ‘the mtDNA
of non-Madagascan Aldabrachelys studied here suggests that only a single species
may be involved’ they preceded (p. 1421) this with the caveat: ‘there may have been
some sampling of extinct lineages.’ Aware that information on genetic diversity of
western Indian Ocean tortoise populations — particularly the extinct granitic
Seychelles lineage(s) — is poorly known, Austin et al. were cautious about over-
extending the interpretation of their results and making dogmatic statements.
Contrary to Hoogmoed’s claim that the genetic research proves that the lectotype is
an Aldabra tortoise, what is known to date of non-Madagascan Aldabrachelys
haplotypes is not sufficient for distinguishing closely related lineages or specimen
provenance (Austin in litt. 27 April 2011). Hence, the taxonomic identity of the
lectotype remains unresolved.
Conclusion
The absence of an unequivocal locality defeats the supposed scientific value of
RMNH 3231 as a name-bearing type for the Aldabra tortoise. Taken together with
the uncertain taxonomic identity, the designation of this specimen as the name-
bearing type for the Aldabra tortoise, and the continued use of the binomen, would
only encourage debate, discord, and nomenclatural instability, incompatible with the
primary objective of the Code: nomenclatural stability and universality.
Additional references
Balmer, O., Ciofi, C., Galbraith, D.A., Swingland, I.R., Zug, G.R. & Caccone, A. 2010.
Population genetic structure of Aldabra giant tortoises. Journal of Heredity, 102(1):
29-37.
Boessenkool, S., Star, B., Scofield, R.P., Seddon, P.J. & Waters, J.M. 2010. Lost in translation
or deliberate falsification? Genetic analyses reveal erroneous museum data for historic
penguin specimens. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B, 227: 1057-1064.
Desmarest, A.-G. 1826. [Note no. 193 in the ‘Zoologie’ section — review of Monographie de
Mammalogies by C.-J. Temminck (1824)]. Bulletin des sciences naturelles et de géologie, 9:
215-224.
Dunn, E.R. & Stuart, L.C. 1951. On the legality of restriction of type locality. Science, 113
(2946): 677-678.
Rasmussen, P.C. & Prys-Jones, R.P. 2003. History vs mystery: the reliability of museum
specimen data. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club Supplement, 123A: 66-94.
Smeenk, C. 2009. Has one of Captain Cook’s possums landed in Leiden? The possible holotype
of Pseudocheirus peregrinus (Boddaert, 1785). Zoologische Mededelingen, 83: 723-740.
Toussaint, A. 1965. Le trafic commercial des Seychelles de 1773 a 1810. Journal of the
Seychelles Society, 4: 20-61 (reproduced as “Annexe III’. Pp. 458-485 in Toussaint, A.
1967. La route des tiles: contribution a ‘histoire maritime des Mascareignes. S.E.V.P.E.N.,
Paris.)
144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cyclodina aenea
Girard, 1857 (currently Oligosoma aeneum; Reptilia, Squamata, SCINCIDAE) and
suppression of the senior subjective synonym Tiliqua ornata Gray, 1843 (currently
Oligosoma ornatum)
(Case 3510; see BZN 67: 307-313)
Rodney A. Hitchmough
Species and Ecosystems Unit, R & D, Department of Conservation, P O Box
10-420, Wellington 6143, New Zealand (e-mail: rhitchmough@doc. govt.nz)
Geoffrey B. Patterson
149 Mairangi Rd, Wilton, Wellington 6012, New Zealand
(e-mail: geoffjoss@clear.net.nz)
Although our case proposed the suppression of the name Tiliqua ornata Gray, 1843,
in the light of subsequent discussions we have decided that the most important
objective is to conserve the current usage of the names of the two skinks in question
and that this could best be achieved by using a different approach. If a specimen of
the ornate skink were to be designated as neotype under Article 75.6 of the Code to
replace the holotype of Oligosoma ornatum (which is, in fact, a copper skink) then the
current usage of the names of both Oligosoma ornatum and O. aeneum would be
conserved.
We consider that the specimen referred to as as a ‘homotype’ (possibly a
misspelling of homeotype?) by Hardy (1977) for Cyclodina ornata — NMNZ
RE.002457 (formerly NMNZ R.1815 and ED S.912), collected at Manakau,
Horowhenua, by A.H. Whitaker, 7 September 1971, is indeed an example of the
ornate skink and would therefore be a suitable neotype, thus conserving the current
usage of both the scientific and vernacular names for this taxon.
Consequently we would like to withdraw our previous proposal and, instead, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to set aside the existing holotype of Tiliqua ornata Gray, 1843 and to designate
as neotype specimen NMNZ RE.002457 (formerly NMNZ R.1815 and ED
5.912) in the National Museum of New Zealand, Wellington, collected at
Manakau, Horowhenua, by A.H. Whitaker, 7 September 1971;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ornata
Gray, 1843, as published in the binomen Tiliqua ornata, and as defined by the
neotype designated in (1) above.
Erratum
The heading in BZN 67: 326 that reads “People who support summary comment on
Case 3463 (list compiled between 14 and 3 November 2010)’ should read: ‘People
who support the above summary comment on Case 3463 (list compiled between 14
October and 3 November 2010)’.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 145
OPINION 2271 (Case 3481)
Crioceris quadripunctata Olivier, 1808 (currently Petauristes
quadripunctatus; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved
Abstract. The Commission has conserved the name Petauristes quadripunctatus
(Olivier, 1808) for a common and widespread South Asian beetle originally described
as Crioceris quadripunctata, by ruling that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior
primary homonym of Crioceris quadripunctata Fabricius, 1801 (currently Monolepta
quadripunctata).
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Coleoptera; CHRYSOMELIDAE; Petau-
ristes; Petauristes quadripunctatus; Southern Asia.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name gquadripunctata
Olivier, 1808, as published in the binomen Crioceris quadripunctata, is not
invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of guadripunctata
Fabricius, 1801, as published in the binomen Crioceris quadripunctata.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) quadripunctata Fabricius, 1801, as published in the binomen Crioceris
quadripunctata;
(b) guadripunctata Olivier, 1808, as published in the binomen Crioceris
quadripunctata, with the endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of
being a junior primary homonym of quadripunctata Fabricius, 1801, as
published in the binomen Crioceris quadripunctata, as ruled in (1) above.
History of Case 3481
An application to conserve the use of the name Petauristes quadripunctatus (Olivier,
1808) for a common and widespread South Asian beetle originally described as
Crioceris quadripunctata, and thus a junior primary homonym of Crioceris quadri-
punctata Fabricius, 1801 (currently Monolepta quadripunctata), was received from
Hans Silfverberg (Finnish Museum of Natural History, Zoological Museum, Helsinki
University, Helsinki, Finland) on 24 October 2008. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 66: 317-319 (December 2009). The title, abstract and keywords of
the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on
this case.
Decision of the Commission
On | December 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 66: 318. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
2011 the votes were as follows:
146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
Afhrmative votes — 23: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier,
Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lim, Minelli, Pape, Papp,
Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega and Zhou.
Negative votes — 2: Lamas and Zhang.
Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and Pyle were on leave of absence.
Voting FOR, Harvey commented that, although he felt the case was relatively
straightforward and he supported the application to maintain existing usage of the
junior homonym, he advised that details of any existing type specimens of both
Crioceris quadripunctata Fabricius, 1801 and Crioceris quadripunctata Olivier, 1808
should be supplied to verify current taxonomic placements. Also voting FOR,
Kottelat said that the application referred to Article 23.9.5, which says that ‘the case
should be referred to the Commission’ in the English version of the Code. However,
the French version says that ‘[the author] may submit the case to the Commission’,
which has different implications.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
quadripunctata, Crioceris, Fabricius, 1801, Systema Eleutheratorum. Tomus II. Kiliae, p. 460.
quadripunctata, Crioceris, Olivier, 1808, Entomologie, ou Histoire Naturelle des Insectes.
Coléoptéres. Tome sixiéme, Paris, Chez Desray, p. 731.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 147
OPINION 2272 (Case 3484)
NOMIIDAE Gozis, 1875 (Insecta, Coleoptera): spelling emended to
NOMIUSIDAE to remove homonymy with NOMIINAE Robertson, 1904
(Insecta, Hymenoptera)
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that homonymy between the Coleoptera
family-group name NOMIIDAE Gozis, 1875 (type genus Nomius Laporte, 1835) and
Hymenoptera family-group name NOMIINAE Robertson, 1904 (type genus Nomia
Latreille, 1804) be removed by changing the spelling of the senior name (the entire
generic name of Nomius is used to form NOMIUSIDAE), while the hymenopteran
family-group name (based on Nomia Latreille, 1804) remains unaltered.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; Coleoptera; CARABIDAE; NOMIIDAE;
NOMIINAE; NOMIUSIDAE; Nomia; Nomius; Nomia curvipes; Nomius graecus; Morio
pygmaeus; ground beetles; sweat bee; Nearctic; Palaearctic; Afrotropical; Asia;
Australia.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29
of the Code the stem of the generic name Nomius Laporte, 1835 is Nomius-.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:
(a) Nomius Laporte, 1835 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Nomius graecus Laporte, 1835;
(b) Nomia Latreille, 1804 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Andrena curvipes Fabricius, 1781.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) pygmaeus Dejean, 1831, as published in the binomen Morio pygmaeus
(senior subjective synonym of Nomius graecus Laporte, 1835, valid specific
name of the type species of Nomius Laporte, 1835);
(b) curvipes Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Andrena curvipes
(specific name of the type species of Nomia Latreille, 1804).
(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology:
(a) NOMIUSIDAE Gozis, 1875, type genus Nomius Laporte, 1835 (spelling
emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Insecta, Coleoptera);
(b) NOMIINAE Robertson, 1904, type genus Nomia Latreille, 1804 (Insecta,
Hymenoptera).
(5) The name NOMIIDAE Gozis, 1875 (spelling emended to NOMIUSIDAE, as ruled in
(1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Family-Group Names in Zoology (Insecta, Coleoptera).
148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
History of Case 3484
An application to remove homonymy between the family-group name NOMIIDAE
Gozis, 1875 (Insecta, Coleoptera), a senior homonym of NOMIINAE Robertson, 1904
(Insecta, Hymenoptera), long-considered to be a synonym of PsYDRINA LeConte,
1853, by emending the stem of the generic name Nomius Laporte, 1835 on which the
beetle family-group name is based, to give NOMIUSIDAE, was received from Michael S.
Engel (University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, U.S.A.) and Patrice Bouchard (Canadian
National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes, Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada) on 15 December 2008. After correspondence the case
was published in BZN 66: 30-33 (March 2010). The title, abstract and keywords of
the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were
received.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 March 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 66: 31. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 2010
the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 22: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier,
Halliday, Harvey, Krell, Lamas, Lim, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Papp, Patterson,
Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega and Zhou.
Negative votes — 2: Alonso-Zarazaga and Kullander.
Split vote: Kottelat voted FOR proposals (1), (2), (3)(b), (4) and AGAINST (3)(a)
and (5).
Kojima abstained. Pyle and Zhang were on leave of absence.
Voting AGAINST, Alonso-Zarazaga said he felt that the authors should have
respected the Principle of Priority and not affected the name NOMIIDAE Gozis, 1875,
which is perfectly constructed. In his view a more acceptable proposal would have
requested modification of NOMIDAE Robertson, 1904, which is a later name, to
NOMIAIDAE. Also voting AGAINST, Kullander said that the proposal did not explain
the etymology of Nomius or Nomia, which might have provided more options for
family names. Kottelat explained his split votes AGAINST in detail. He voted
AGAINST (3)(a) because pygmaeus is not the type species of Nomius; the type species
is graecus, as stated in (2)(a), suggesting that graecus should be the name placed on
the Official List; he voted AGAINST proposal (5) because after the decision in (1)
NOMIIDAE Gozis is not a name but an erroneous original spelling of NOMIUSIDAE Gozis.
Logically and semantically, a name cannot be at the same time listed as a valid name
under one spelling and as an invalid name under another spelling. It is one or the
other, but not both. This is a gross confusion of the words ‘name’ and ‘spelling’,
as explained in the ICZN Glossary. And as the Indexes of Names and Lists of
Names are for listing names, spellings cannot and should not be listed. Kojima
ABSTAINED, saying that suppression of NOMIIDAE Gozis, 1875 could be a simpler
solution.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes
by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 149
curvipes, Andrena, Fabricius, 1781, Species insectorum, exhibentes eorum differentias specificas,
synonyma auctorum, loca natalia, metamorphosin, adjectis observationibus, descriptionibus,
p. 182.
Nomia Latreille, 1804, Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, appliquée aux arts, princi-
palement a lagriculture et a l’'economie rurale et domestique, Tome 24 [vol. 24], p. 182.
NOMIIDAE Gozis, 1875, Catalogue des coléoptéres de France et de la fauna Gallo-Rhénane, 2,
pe: 133
NOMIINAE Robertson, 1904, Canadian Entomologist, 36: 42.
Nomius Laporte, 1835, Etudes entomologiques, ou descriptions d’insectes nouveaux; et observa-
tions sur leur synonymie, p. 144.
NOMIUSIDAE Gozis, 1875, Catalogue des coléoptéres de France et de la faune Gallo-Rhénane, 2,
Dr),
pygmaeus, Morio, Dejean, 1831, Species général des coléoptéres, de la collection de M. le Comte
Dejean. Tome cinquiéme, p. 512.
150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
OPINION 2273 (Case 3497)
Cyphon palustris Thomson, 1855 (Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name
conserved
Abstract. The Commission has conserved the specific name of the widespread
Palaearctic marsh beetle Cyphon palustris Thomson, 1855 (SCIRTIDAE), published as a
junior primary homonym of Cyphon palustris Germar, 1818 (currently Eubria
palustris, PSEPHENIDAE) by ruling it to be not invalid by reason of being a junior
primary homonym.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Coleoptera; SCIRTIDAE; PSEPHENIDAE;
Cyphon; Eubria; Cyphon palustris; Eubria palustris; marsh beetles; water penny
beetles; Palaearctis.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name palustris Thomson,
1855, as published in the binomen Cyphon palustris, is not invalid by reason of
being a junior primary homonym of palustris Germar, 1818, as published in the
binomen Cyphon palustris.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) palustris Thomson, 1855, as published in the binomen Cyphon palustris
(with the endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior
primary homonym of palustris Germar, 1818, as published in the binomen
Cyphon palustris, as ruled in (1) above);
(b) palustris Germar, 1818, as published in the binomen Cyphon palustris.
History of Case 3497
An application to conserve the specific name of the widespread Palaearctic marsh
beetle Cyphon palustris Thomson, 1855 (sciRTIDAE), published as a junior primary
homonym of Cyphon palustris Germar, 1818 (currently Eubria palustris, PSEPHENIDAE)
by ruling it to be not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym was
received from Oscar Vorst (National Museum of Natural History, Naturalis, Leiden,
The Netherlands) on 25 June 2009. After correspondence the case was published in
BZN 66: 323-326 (December 2009). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were
published on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on this case.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 December 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 66: 324. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
2011 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 24: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier,
Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Minelli, Lamas, Pape, Papp,
Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 BSI
Negative votes — 1: Lim.
Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and Pyle were on leave of absence.
Voting FOR, Grygier said he cannot understand what is meant by the word
‘available’ cited in paragraph | in the Case, as in this context, Article 11.9.3.6 has
nothing to do with the ‘availability’ of the transfer of a nominal species from one
genus to another; in fact, the concept of ‘availability’ is inapplicable to such transfers.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
palustris, Cyphon, Thomson, 1855, Ofversigt af Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Férhandlin-
ear N27 320.
palustris, Cyphon, Germar, 1818, Magazin der Entomologie (Germar ), 3: 238.
152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
OPINION 2274 (Case 3455)
Pseudobagrus Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes, BAGRIDAE):
conservation by suppression of a senior synonym not approved
Abstract. An application to conserve the generic name Pseudobagrus Bleeker, 1859
for a group of bagrid catfishes (order Siluriformes) by suppressing the senior name
Tachysurus La Cepéde, 1803, was not approved by the Commission.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; BAGRIDAE; Pseudobagrus; Tachysurus; Pseudo-
bagrus fulvidraco; Tachysurus sinensis; catfish; China.
Ruling
(1) It is hereby ruled that the following names are not suppressed:
(a) Tachysurus La Cepede, 1803;
(b) sinensis La Cepéde, 1803, as published in the binomen Tachysurus sinensis
(specific name of the type species of Tachysurus La Cepéde, 1803).
(2) No names are placed on Official Lists or Indexes and the issue is left open for
subsequent workers to follow the precepts of the Code or to make new
proposals to the Commission.
History of Case 3455
An application to conserve the generic name Pseudobagrus Bleeker, 1859 for a group
of bagrid catfishes (order Siluriformes) by suppressing the senior name Tachysurus La
Cepéde, 1803, was received from J. Andrés Lopez (Florida Museum of Natural
History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, U.S.A.), E. Zhang and J-L.
Cheng (Unstitute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, Hubei
Province, China) on 13 March 2008. After correspondence the case was published in
BZN 65: 202-204 (September 2008). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were
published on the Commission’s website. An adverse comment was published in BZN
67: 68-71.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 December 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 65: 203-204. At the close of the voting period on |
March 2011, the results were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 5: Bouchet, Grygier, Halliday, Papp and Yanega.
Negative votes — 18: Ballerio, Brothers, Fautin, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell,
Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Minelli, Pape, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston
and Zhang.
Bogutskaya and Zhou abstained. Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and Pyle were on leave of
absence.
Voting AGAINST, Brothers said that requesting the suppression of one of two
names, both of which are stated to be widely used for different taxa, would seem to
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 153
defeat any aim to promote stability, and result in a solution little different from that
supposedly being countered, merely favouring the other name. Also voting
AGAINST, Kojima commented that the identity of Tachysurus sinensis La Cepéde,
1803 is now unambiguous, as its neotype has been designated by Ng & Kottelat
(2007), and therefore the genus Tachysurus is well defined. Stys, voting AGAINST,
said he agreed with the arguments provided in the comment by Ng & Kottelat (2010).
Voting FOR, Yanega said that this case asked the Commission, in effect, to weigh
which of two actions is more important to nomenclature; the fixation via type
designation of a single previously extremely ambiguous name based solely upon an
illustration, versus the generic placement of a large number of species. Clearly, the
less disruptive alternative is to eliminate the name Jachysurus, rather than resurrect-
ing it and giving it priority over other long-established and well- characterised names.
Tachysurus may well be the correct name, following the Code, but sometimes stability
takes precedence; while the scholarship and argumentation behind it is commend-
able, the end result of resurrecting Tachysurus is unfavourable, and thus contrary to
the overall aims of the Code.
154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
OPINION 2275 (Case 3491)
Podargus cornutus Yemminck, 1822 (currently Batrachostomus
cornutus; Aves, PODARGIDAE): specific name conserved by designation
of a neotype
Abstract. The Commission has conserved the accustomed usage of the name cornutus
Temminck, 1822 for the Sumatran population of the southeast Asian species
currently named Batrachostomus javensis (Horsfield, 1821) (Aves, PODARGIDAE) by
ruling that the name Podargus cornutus was proposed by Temminck (1822) for a new
taxon, rather than as a replacement name for Podargus javensis Horsfield, 1821. The
Commission has designated a neotype for Podargus cornutus Temminck, 1822.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; PODARGIDAE; Batrachostomus; Podargus;
Batrachostomus javensis; Batrachostomus cornutus; frogmouth; Java; Sumatra.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name Podargus cornutus
was proposed by Temminck (1822) for a new taxon, rather than as a
replacement name for Podargus javensis Horsfield, 1821.
(2) The specimen in Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN), C.G.
2004-45 (A.C. Ancien Catalog: 5221) is hereby designated as neotype of
Podargus cornutus Temminck, 1822, as deemed available in (1) above.
(3) The name cornutus Temminck, 1822, as published in the binomen Podargus
cornutus, as deemed available in (1) above and as defined by the neotype in the
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris IMNHN), C.G. 2004-45 (A.C.
Ancien Catalog: 5221) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology.
History of Case 3491
An application to conserve the accustomed usage of the name cornutus Temminck,
1822 for the Sumatran population of the southeast Asian species currently named
Batrachostomus javensis (Horsfield, 1821) (Aves, PODARGIDAE), was received from
Nigel Cleere (Upper Bucklebury, Berkshire, U.K.), Edward C. Dickinson (Eastbourne,
East Sussex, U.K.), Jean-Francois Voisin and Claire Voisin (Muséum National
d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) on 12 March 2009. After correspondence the case
was published in BZN 66: 327-331 (December 2009). The title, abstract and
keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments
were received on this case.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 December 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 66: 329-330. At the close of the voting period on 1
March 2011 the votes were as follows:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 BSS
Affirmative votes — 18: Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Halliday, Harvey, Kojima,
Kottelat, Krell, Lamas, Minelli, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol,
Winston and Yanega.
Negative votes — 3: Grygier, Zhang and Zhou.
Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Kullander and Lim abstained. Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and
Pyle were on leave of absence.
Brothers commented that he voted FOR the proposals in principle, despite some
perceived shortcomings in their detail. He felt that it was questionable whether
Article 75.6 was applicable for this case; the issue seemed actually to be the status of
the name cornutus Temminck as a replacement name and therefore an objective
synonym of javensis Horsfield, and a request to change that status, followed by the
designation of an appropriate type specimen for it. Articles 78.1 and 81.1 of the Code
seemed the most appropriate to invoke. The designation of a ‘neotype’ under such
circumstances also seemed inappropriate; the specimen involved should rather be
called the ‘holotype’ since this is the term used by Temminck for his description. Also
voting FOR, Yanega felt that the case did not thoroughly cover all of the pertinent
portions of the Code and how they would apply; accordingly, it was not immediately
obvious, nor easy to appreciate how the Commission should or should not act. He
felt that ultimately stability would be properly served if the petition were granted.
Temminck clearly did not intend to describe a new taxon, but did so anyway, and a
positive decision by the Commission would finally validate this, rectifying the
discrepancy between Code-compliance and present usage.
Grygier voted AGAINST, explaining that there is an important point concerning
name-bearing types of new replacement names for species-group taxa that was not
clearly made in the case. At present, under Article 72.7, the Tring specimen of
Podargus javensis 1s the holotype of both that nominal species and P. cornutus, and
the Paris specimen of P. cornutus is not a name-bearing type. Under this circum-
stance, bringing the present case under Article 75.6 is appropriate. However, the first
part of the proposed solution leads to a situation in which Article 75.6 no longer
applies. If P. cornutus of Temminck is declared to be a new taxon, and not a
replacement name, then its type series retroactively will have consisted of both
specimens assigned to that species by Temminck, i.e. two extant syntypes. The second
part of the proposed solution would thus require naming an extant syntype as a
neotype, which seems improbable by definition. The second part of the present
proposals should instead have asked for the restriction of the type series of P.
cornutus to just the Paris specimen, which would then indeed be the holotype, as
Cleere et al. (2006) mistakenly claimed.
Original reference
The following is the original reference to the name placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
cornutus, Podargus, Temminck, 1822, in Temminck C.J. & Laugier, M. of Nouveau recueil de
planches coloriées d’oiseaux, pour servir de suite et de complément aux planches enluminées
de Buffon. Livraison 27, text for Plate 159.
156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
OPINION 2276 (Case 3479)
Cuvieronius Osborn, 1923 (Mammalia, Proboscidea): usage conserved
by designation of a type species
Abstract. The generic name Cuvieronius Osborn, 1923, for South American gompho-
theriid proboscideans, has been conserved by setting aside all previous type species
fixations and designating Mastotherium hyodon Fischer, 1814 as the type species of
Cuvieronius and by designating a neotype for that species.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Proboscidea; GOMPHOTHERIIDAE;
Brazil; Cuvieronius; Mastotherium hyodon; Cuvieronius tarijensis; South America;
Ecuador; Chile.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power:
(a) it is hereby ruled that all previous type species fixations for Cuvieronius
Osborn, 1923 are set aside and Mastotherium hyodon Fischer, 1814 is
designated as the type species;
(b) the Commission hereby sets aside all previous type fixations for Masto-
therium hyodon Fischer, 1814 and designates the skull and lower jaw from
Tarija, Bolivia originally described and illustrated by Boule & Thevenin
(1920, pls. 1-3): MNHN TAR 1270 (Musée National d’Histoire Naturelle,
Paris) as neotype of Mastotherium hyodon.
(2) The name Cuvieronius Osborn, 1923 (gender: masculine), type species Masto-
therium hyodon Fischer, 1814, as ruled in (1)(a) above, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name hyodon, as published in the binomen Mastotherium hyodon Fischer,
1814 (specific name of the type species of Cuvieronius Osborn, 1923) as defined
by the neotype designated in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3479
An application to conserve the generic name Cuvieronius Osborn, 1923, for extinct
South American gomphothertid proboscideans, by setting aside all previous type
species fixations and designating Mastotherium hyodon Fischer, 1814 as the type species
of Cuvieronius and by designating a neotype for that species was received from Spencer
G. Lucas (New Mexico Museum of Natural History, Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A.) on 15
October 2008. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 66: 265-270
(September 2009). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the
Commission’s website. One comment in support was published in BZN 67: 95-96.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 66: 267. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
2010 the votes were as follows:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011 157
Affirmative votes — 19: Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Halliday, Harvey, Kojima,
Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, van Tol,
Yanega, Zhang and Zhou.
Negative votes — 5: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Grygier, Minelli and Winston.
Stys abstained. Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and Pyle were on leave of absence.
Voting FOR Halliday commented that the proposal presented in case 3479 was
persuasive and should be effective in stabilising the names of the taxa concerned. He
felt, however, that one further action was needed for a complete solution to the
problem: the Commission must explicitly set aside the existing holotype of hyodon,
invoking Article 75.5, before designating specimen number MNHN TAR 1270 as the
neotype of hyodon. He felt this request should have been included in the Case.
Voting AGAINST, Bogutskaya suggested that a better solution to the problems
that surround Cuvieronius that would promote the stability and universality of
nomenclature was to keep M. humboldtii Fisher, 1814 as the type species of
Cuvieronius and designate as its neotype the skull and lower jaw from Tarya, Bolivia:
MNHN TAR 1270 (holotype of C. tarijensis). This would provide the same result,
but with no replacement of the type species of Cuvieronius. Minelli, voting
AGAINST, said that fixing the concept of the type species of Cuvieronius Osborn,
1923 by replacing the poor type material of the oldest nominal taxa involved in the
case is a sensible choice. However, this does not require setting aside all previous type
species fixations for Cuvieronius Osborn, 1923, to allow designating Mastotherium
hyodon Fischer, 1814, as the type species. A simpler solution, not affecting the
original type species fixation, would be to fix the specimen from Tarya MNHN TAR
1270 as neotype of Mastotherium humboldtii Fischer, 1814. Also voting AGAINST,
Grygier advocated that if there was any possibility of obtaining and matching
fragmentary gene sequences from the holotype tooth of hyodon Fischer and well-
characterised fossils of Cuvieronius and Haplomastodon, we should wait for such
data. If not, this unidentifiable-to-taxonomic-genus tooth was the main thing needing
resolution. Two ways were available to accomplish this, both with problems. The
current proposal represented one approach. However, the long-term preponderant
usage of hyodon and the acceptance of Cabrera’s invalid type-species designation
have evidently occurred in relatively few works (only about 30 are cited, by relatively
few authors), and the proposed type locality is distant from the original type locality.
Another possible solution, which he slightly favoured because it did not involve
endorsement of earlier repeated mistakes, was conditional suppression of humboldtii
Fischer and hyodon in favour of the currently best-understood name farijensis
Ficcarelli et al., designation of the latter as the type species of Cuvieronius, and full
suppression of andium Cuvier, 1824 (humboldtii Cuvier, 1824, being invalid as both
an objective junior synonym and secondary junior homonym of humboldtii Fischer,
1814 does not require suppression). Grygier said that designating tarijensis as the type
might be regarded as one step too far, but in both solutions the same individual,
whether it be called the holotype of tarijensis or the neotype of hyodon, would become
central to the concept of the genus. As an aside, there is an inconsistency concerning
the original locality of Cuvier’s humboldtii: paragraph 1 states that it was from Chile,
but paragraph 8 says the type specimen was from ‘either Chile or Ecuador near
Concepcion’. While there is a city called Concepcion in Chile, there is apparently no
such municipality in Ecuador. Also, the Case was brought under Articles 68 and 75,
158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(2) June 2011
but it should have been brought under Articles 75.5 and 81.1; Article 68 does not
require anything to be referred to the Commission.
Stys ABSTAINED, with the criticism that he felt the Case was poorly presented,
with many irrelevant details, the present taxonomic situations not clearly outlined,
and that the reader was not unambiguously told what would happen if all the
illegitimate nomenclatural actions would be simply ignored (as they should have
been).
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Cuvieronius Osborn, 1923, American Museum Novitates, 99: 1.
hyodon, Mastotherium, Fischer von Waldheim, 1814, Zoognosia Tabulis synopticis illustrata,
vol. 3, p. 341.
Contents — continued
OPINION 2275 (Case 3491). Podargus cornutus Temminck, 1822 (currently Batra-
chostomus cornutus; Aves, PODARGIDAE): specific name conserved by designation of
a neotype i: 154
OPINION 2276 (Case 3479). Caviavonias Hidionn, 1923 (Mammalia, Proboscidea):
usage conserved by designation of a type species. . . . 156
ewe
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES
INNIAICMTA
: z SS ee 2
ee 2B
S
eens
es
.
ee
oes
es ae
se
ie
Bh, sean, ae
sees
esi wastttontosn
Oe SORES
ee es
eochelo
TESS CURE
LO aaa
EE
POLO
CNS
ie
Pe Breit
ea
tp Cea
OOK
is j ee
‘ease
ses
Volume 68, Part 3, 30 September 2011, pp. 159-238 ISSN 0007-5167
he Bulletin of
The Official Periodical
of the International Commission
~on Zoological Nomenclature
;
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a registered charity
(no. 211944) based in the U.K. The annual subscription for 2012 is £210 or US$360 or €295,
postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £105 or
US$180 or €145. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to:
The Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. +44 207 942 5653; e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk)
Electronic communication is preferred. Manuscripts sent by post should include a digital
copy of the text and figures.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Officers
President Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands)
Vice-President Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S. A.)
Executive Secretary Dr E. Michel (U.K. )
Councillors indicated below with *
Members
Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga* Prof. S. Lim (Malaysia; Parasitology)
(Spain; Coleoptera) Prof. A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda)
Dr A. Ballerio (/taly; Coleoptera) Prof. P. K. L. Ng (Singapore;
Dr N. G. Bogutskaya (Russia; Ichthyology) Crustacea, Ichthyology)
Prof. P. Bouchet* (France; Mollusca) Dr T. Pape (Denmark; Diptera)
Prof. D. J. Brothers Dr L. Papp (Hungary, Diptera)
(South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof. D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista)
Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S.A.; Cnidaria) Dr R. Pyle* (U.S.A.; Ichthyology)
Dr M. J. Grygier (Japan; Crustacea) Dr G. Rosenberg* (U.S. A.; Mollusca)
Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof. P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera)
Dr M. S. Harvey (Australia; Arachnida) Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata)
Prof. J. Kojima (Japan; Hymenoptera) Dr J. E. Winston (U.S. A.; Bryozoa)
Dr M. Kottelat (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr D. Yanega (U.S. A.; Entomology)
Dr F.-T. Krell (U.S.A.; Coleoptera) Dr Z.-Q. Zhang (New Zealand; Acari)
Dr S. O. Kullander (Sweden; Ichthyology) Prof. H. Zhou (China; Coleoptera)
Prof. Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera)
Secretariat
Dr E. Michel (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor-in-Chief)
Dr S. Nikolaeva (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Editor)
S. Tracey (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Administrator)
N. Dale-Skey Papilloud M.Sc. (Bulletin Zoologist)
E. W. Baker (Webmaster and Development Officer )
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
Dr M. Dixon (Chairman)
C. Laws (Treasurer and Managing Director)
Abstracts of Applications and Opinions, Comments in full and details of the names published
in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology are posted on the
Commission’s website (http://iczn.org)
Cover image: Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa (Linnaeus, 1758), the European mole cricket (Latin:
gryllus — cricket, talpa — mole, from its fossorial limbs, fine hairs and subterranean habit).
Widespread in the Western Palaearctic region and introduced into parts of the U.S.A. this
insect can be an agricultural pest in significant numbers, although in the U.K. it is extremely
rare and subject to a U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan (report sightings to g.beccaloni@
nhm.ac.uk). Detail from plate 456 of British Entomology. Original Drawings, vol. 10, by John
Curtis (1862) (© Natural History Museum, London).
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2011
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 159
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
NOV UY 71]
LIBRARIES
Volume 68, part 3 (pp. 159-238) 30 September
Notices
(1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission
should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the
front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the
Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two
page form in each volume and available online (at http://Aiczn.org/content/guidelines-
case-preparation) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors
for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as
opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applica-
tions and, as far as it can, check the main nomenclatural references in applications.
Correspondence should be sent by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible.
(2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been
published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be
submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or
against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible.
Comments may be edited (see instructions for submission of comments at
http://iczn.org/content/instructions-comments).
(3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the
Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the
Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more
about the list at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list.
(4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on
nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal
with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes
should be sent to the Executive Secretary.
New applications to the Commission
The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the
Bulletin (volume 68, part 2, 30 June 2011) went to press. Under Article 82 of
the Code, the existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the
Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published.
CASE 3567: Bulimus lineatus Bruguiére, 1789 (currently Macroceramus lineatus;
Gastropoda, UROCoPTIDAE) and Bulimus lineatus Draparnaud, 1801 (currently Acicula
lineata; Gastropoda, ACICULIDAE): proposed conservation of both specific names.
F.W. Welter-Schultes.
CASE 3568: Stirpulina Stoliczka, 1870 (Bivalvia, CLAVAGELLIDAE): proposed conser-
vation by suppression of 7ubolana Bivona Bernardi, 1832. M.E.Y. Low & S.K. Tan.
160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
CASE 3569: Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789 (Gastropoda, LIMACIDAE) and
Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823 (currently Arion fasciatus; Gastropoda, ARIONIDAE):
proposed conservation of both specific names. T. von Proschwitz & G. Falkner.
CASE 3570: Curculio scirpi Fabricius, 1792 (Insecta, Coleoptera, CIRCULIONOIDEA,
ERIRHINIDAE): proposed precedence over Curculio rhamni Herbst, 1784 and C. scirpi
Rossi, 1790. R. Caldara, H. Winkelmann & M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga.
CASE 3571: Crotalinus catenatus Rafinesque, 1818 and Crotalus tergeminus Say,
1822 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation of usage by designation of
neotypes. B.I. Crother, J.M. Savage & A.T. Holycross.
CASE 3572: PSITTACULINAE Vigors, 1825 (Aves): proposed conservation of usage.
R. Schodde, L. Joseph & W.J. Bock.
CASE 3573: Papilio narcissus Fabricius (currently Heteropsis narcissus; Lepidop-
tera, NYMPHALIDAE) and Papilio narcissus Fabricius, 1775 (currently Hypochrysops;
Lepidoptera, LYCAENIDAE): request for a ruling to resolve homonymy. E. Balletto &
D..C..dvees,
CASE 3574: Cereus Itmoni, 1830 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed designation of a
new type species. D.G. Fautin, R.B. Williams & T. Molodtsova.
CASE 3575: Haltica undulata Kutschera, 1860 (currently Phyllotreta undulata;
Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over Haltica bivittata Waterhouse, 1838
(currently Phyllotreta bivittata). C. Reid, R. Booth & M. Doberl.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 161
Charles Davies Sherborn
ANCHORING BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION:
FROM SHERBORN TO THE 21ST CENTURY AND BEYOND
Charles Davies Sherborn (1861-1942)
provided the bibliographic foundation
for current zoological nomenclature with
his magnum opus /ndex Animalium. \n
the 43 years he spent working on this ex-
traordinary 11 volume, 9,000 page re-
source, he anchored our understanding
of animal diversity through the
published scientific record. No work has
equalled it since, and it remains in cur-
rent and critical use.
A symposium celebrating Sherborn’s life
and legacy will be held at the Natural
History Museum on 28 October 2011, with
an international panel of experts on
bibliography and biodiversity informat-
ics, linking a view of the past with an
active debate on the future of these eee ee
related fields. Sherborn’s personal bookplate
Flett Theatre, Natural History Museum, London
(Exhibition Road entrance)
28 October 2011
contact Gina Douglas at meetings@shnh.org.uk
www.iczn.org or www.shnh.org.uk
NATURAL
HISTORY
162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Coral taxon names published in ‘Corals of the world’ by J.E.N. Veron
(2000): potential availability confirmed under Article 86.1.2
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature received a request from
J.E.N. Veron to rule upon the availability of 103 species names, one generic name and
one family name.
In a monographic work on the taxonomy of scleractinian corals, Veron (2000)
proposed many new names for taxa at the species-group (103 names), genus-group
(two names), and family-group (one name) levels, in some cases without meeting all
the new requirements for availability that went into effect when the fourth edition of
the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature came into force on 1 January
2000. In particular, the descriptions of new species did not explicitly fix a holotype or
syntypes as required by Articles 16.4.1 and 72.3. As a result, it has been contended
that the majority, if not all, of these names are nomenclaturally unavailable as of
this work, with resulting taxonomic uncertainty among zoologists. To remedy this
situation, Dr Veron presented testimonial and documentary evidence to the Commis-
sion that he submitted the manuscript for publication in December 1999.
In accordance with Article 86.1.2 of the Code, the Commission was asked to
confirm that these names are not to be set aside on the grounds that they do not
comply with the changed provisions of the fourth edition of the Code published in
1999 and that each of these names is potentially available as of Veron (2000),
provided that it meets the other provisions of the Code (i.e. Articles 10—20) related to
availability.
Under the one-month rule, the Commission voted on Veron’s request. Twenty-
four votes were received, all FOR the request.
It should be noted that this action validates the work but not the names per se
within. It is simply a verification that the names should not be set aside provided that
they meet the provisions of the third edition of the Code published in, in particular,
but not limited to, Articles 10-20. The names at issue are provided in the list below,
prepared by the ICZN Secretariat and modified from the Hexacorallians of the
World website, http://hercules.kgs.ku.edu/hexacoral/anemone2/index.cfm as a con-
venience. However, this is not validation of taxonomic units (which is not in the
purview of the Commission) nor is it a publication of a List of Available Names
(LAN). The Commission has not ruled that these names are individually available
and the list is thus not authoritative. It remains for subsequent workers to confirm
availability of each name.
Ostensibly new taxa described in J.E.N. Veron (2000) ‘Corals of the world’
Notes
1. Misspellings have been corrected.
2. Where required, spellings of specific names have been corrected to meet the
provisions of the Code regarding gender agreement.
Additional notes on gender agreement:
e Porites — masculine (as in Opinion 2061).
e Favites— masculine (Article 30.1.4.4. A compound genus-group name ending in
the suffix -ites, -oides, -ides, -odes, or -istes is to be treated as masculine unless
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 163
its author, when establishing the name, stated that it had another gender or
treated it as such by combining it with an adjectival species-group name in
another gender form). The first included species in Favites Link, 1807 was F-
astrinus Link, 1807.
e The specific name napopora is treated as a noun in apposition.
3. Species are listed under their original genus, even if later workers have moved
them to other genera.
Specific names
. Acanthastrea faviaformis Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 24)
. Acanthastrea regularis Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 16)
. Acanthastrea subechinata Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 13)
. Acropora cylindrica Veron & Fenner in Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 293)
. Acropora elizabethensis Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 188)
. Acropora fenneri Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 416)
. Acropora filiformis Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 418)
. Acropora gomezi Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 408)
. Acropora japonica Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 330)
. Acropora lamarcki Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 376)
. Acropora maryae Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 392)
. Acropora minuta Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 210)
. Acropora navini Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 431)
. Acropora parahemprichii Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 274)
. Acropora parapharaonis Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 367)
. Acropora pectinata Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 264; misspelled there as Acropora
pectinatus)
. Acropora proximalis Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 278)
. Acropora rufa Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 269; misspelled there as Acropora
rufus)
. Acropora torresiana Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 316)
. Alveopora minuta Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 396)
. Anacropora pillai Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 175)
. Anacropora spumosa Veron, Turak & DeVantier in Veron, 2000 (vol. 1,
p. 171)
. Cycloseris colini Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 247)
. Cyphastrea hexasepta Veron, Turak & DeVantier in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3,
p. 245)
. Echinophyllia costata Fenner & Veron in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 330)
. Echinophyllia pectinata Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 331)
. Echinopora irregularis Veron, Turak & DeVantier in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3,
p. 262)
. Echinopora robusta Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 263)
. Echinopora tiranensis Veron, Turak & DeVantier in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3,
p. 265)
. Echinophyllia taylorae Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 327) (the species Echino-
pora taylorae was erroneously described by Veron (2000) in the genus
164
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Echinophyllia. Veron (2002) published the following statement ‘In the original
description, this species was erroneously placed in genus Echinophyllia’).
. Favia albida Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 112; misspelled there as Favia albidus)
. Favia lacuna Veron, Turak & DeVantier in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 111)
. Favia marshae Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 122)
. Favia rosaria Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 119)
. Favia truncata Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 113; misspelled there as Favia truncatus)
. Favia vietnamensis Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 127)
. Favites bestae Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 140)
. Favites micropentagonus Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 137; misspelled there as
Favites micropentagona)
. Favites paraflexuosus Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 155; misspelled there as Favites
paraflexuosa)
. Fungia puishani Veron & DeVantier in Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 277)
. Galaxea acrhelia Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 115)
. Galaxea cryptoramosa Fenner & Veron in Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 114)
. Galaxea longisepta Fenner & Veron in Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 116)
. Goniastrea minuta Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 158)
. Goniastrea ramosa Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 160)
. Goniastrea thecata Veron, DeVantier & Turak in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3,
p. 169)
. Goniopora albicona Veron, DeVantier & Turak in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3,
p. 361)
. Goniopora ciliata Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 327)
. Goniopora pearsoni Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 365)
. Goniopora sultani Veron, DeVantier & Turak in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3,
p. 355)
. Halomitra meierae Veron & Maragos in Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 300)
. Leptastrea aequalis Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 235)
. Leptoseris striata Fenner & Veron in Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 212)
. Lobophyllia dentata Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 46; misspelled there as Lobophyllia
dentatus)
. Lobophyllia flabelliformis Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 48)
. Lobophyllia serrata Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 41; misspelled there as Lobophyllia
serratus)
. Micromussa diminuta Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 9)
. Montastraea colemani Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 219; misspelled there as
Montastrea colemani)
. Montastraea serageldini Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 213; misspelled there as
Montastrea serageldini)
. Montipora aspergilla Veron, DeVantier & Turak in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3,
p. 167)
. Montipora crypta Turak, DeVantier & Veron in Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 126)
. Montipora delicatula Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 70)
. Montipora echinata Veron, DeVantier & Turak in Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 166)
. Montipora hemispherica Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 147)
. Montipora hodgsoni Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 72)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 165
. Montipora kellyi Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 164)
. Montipora niugini Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 158)
. Montipora pachytuberculata Veron, DeVantier & Turak in Veron, 2000
(vol. 1, p. 166)
. Montipora palawanensis Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 132)
. Montipora porites Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 162)
. Montipora saudii Turak, DeVantier & Veron in Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 92)
. Montipora taiwanensis Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 132)
. Montipora verruculosa Veron, 2000 (vol. 1, p. 136; misspelled there as
Montipora verruculosus)
. Montipora vietnamensis Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 127)
. Mycedium steeni Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 347)
. Mycedium umbra Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 342)
. Oxypora convoluta Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 340)
. Oxypora egyptensis Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 341)
. Parasimplastrea sheppardi Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 230)
. Pectinia africana Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 353; misspelled there as Pectinia
africanus)
. Pectinia pygmaea Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 361; misspelled there as Pectinia
pygmaeus)
. Platygyra acuta Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 190)
. Platygyra carnosa Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 184; misspelled there as Platygyra
carnosus)
. Plerogyra disca Veron & Fenner in Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 86)
. Plesiastrea devantieri Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 228)
. Pocillopora effusa Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 39; misspelled there as Pocillopora
effusus)
. Pocillopora fungiformis Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 40)
. Pocillopora indiania Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 37)
. Pocillopora kelleheri Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 32)
. Pocillopora zelli Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 36)
. Podabacia lankaensis Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 315)
. Podabacia sinai Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 314)
. Porites desilveri Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 308)
. Porites flavus Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 341)
. Porites harrisoni Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 343)
. Porites napopora Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 318)
. Porites rugosus Fenner & Veron in Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 342; misspelled
there as Porites rugosa)
. Porites tuberculosus Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 331; misspelled there as Porites
tuberculosa)
. Poritipora paliformis Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 347)
. Sandalolitha africana Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 299)
. Seriatopora dendritica Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 46)
. Seriatopora guttata Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 50; misspelled there as Seriatopora
guttatus)
. Stylophora madagascarensis Veron, 2000 (vol. 2, p. 57)
166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Generic names
1. Poritipora Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 347) (type species Poritipora paliformis Veron,
2000 by monotypy) (This name appears to meet all the conditions for avail-
ability under the fourth edition of the Code without recourse to Article 86.1.2.)
2. Micromussa Veron, 2000 (vol. 3, p. 8) (type species Acanthastrea amakusensis
Veron, 1990 by original designation)
Family names
EUPHYLLIDAE Veron, 2000, vol. 2, p. 67 (type genus Euphyllia Dana, 1846 by original
designation). This name, presented by Veron as a new family, is evidently merely an
erroneous subsequent spelling of EUPHYLLIIDAE Milne Edwards, 1857, proposed
originally as EUPHYLLIACEAE at the lower family-level rank of ‘agéle’. Under the
Principle of Coordination (Article 36.1), EUPHYLLIIDAE Milne Edwards, 1857 is thus
the correct attribution and spelling, and neither EUPHYLLIDAE, nor its emendation
EUPHYLLIDAE sensu Veron (2002), has any separate availability.
References
Milne Edwards, H. 1857. Histoire naturelle des Coralliaires ou Polypes proprement dits, vol. 2.
633 pp. Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris.
Veron, J.E.N. 2000. Corals of the world, vols. 1-3. 1410 pp. Australian Institute of Marine
Science, Townsville, Australia.
Veron, J.E.N. 2002. New species described in Corals of the World. Australian Institute of
Marine Science Monograph Series, 11: 1—206.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 167
Case 3540
AMPHIPORIDAE Rukhin, 1938 (Porifera, Stromatoporata, Amphiporida):
proposed emendation to AMPHIPORAIDAE to remove homonymy with
AMPHIPORIDAE McIntosh, 1873 (Nemertea, Hoplonemertea)
Hiiseyin Ozdikmen
Gazi University, Science & Arts Faculty, Department of Biology, 06500
Ankara, Turkey (e-mail: ozdikmen@gazi.edu.tr)
Hakan Demir
Gazi University, Science & Arts Faculty, Department of Biology, 06500
Ankara, Turkey (e-mail: ozyptila@gmail.com)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 29 and 55.3 of the Code, is
to emend the spelling of the family-group name AMPHIPORIDAE Rukhin, 1938
(Porifera, Stromatoporata, Amphiporida), a junior homonym of AMPHIPORIDAE
McIntosh, 1873 (Nemertea, Hoplonemertea) thereby removing the homonymy
between the two names. It is proposed that the stem of the generic name Amphipora
Schulz, 1883, on which the stromatoporoid name is based, be emended to Amphipora-
to give AMPHIPORAIDAE, while leaving the nemertean family-group name (based on
Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831) unchanged.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Nemertea; Enopla; Hoplonemertea; AMPHIPORI-
DAE; Amphiporus; Porifera; Stromatoporata; Amphiporida; AMPHIPORAIDAE; Amphi-
pora; nemerteans; stromatoporoids; Silurian; Devonian; European seas; cosmopoli-
tan.
1. Family-group names based on the stem Amphipor- (Greek ‘amphi’? meaning
around, on both sides and Greek ‘poros’ ‘narrow passage, strait’; the latter latinised
to ‘porus’ with the sense of ‘channel in the body’) are in use in the order
Hoplonemertea (Nemertea, Enopla) as AMPHIPORIDAE McIntosh, 1873 and in the
order Amphiporida (Porifera, Stromatoporata) as AMPHIPORIDAE Rukhin, 1938.
However, the homonymy between these family-group names has never been resolved.
The homonymy between the two family-group names results from similarity of the
names of their type genera. In accordance with Article 55.3 of the Code this case is
referred to the Commission.
2. The family-group name AMPHIPORIDAE was initially introduced by McIntosh
(1873, p. 134) for Nemertea, with the type genus Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 (p. 63).
According to Gibbon & Crandall (1991), the genus Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 was
originally established with one included species, A. albicans Ehrenberg, 1831. They
argued that A. albicans Ehrenberg, 1831 should be regarded as a nomen nudum.
Therefore, they referred the case to the Commission and proposed to designate the
species Planaria lactiflorea Johnston, 1828 as type species of the genus Amphiporus.
The generic name Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 with the type species Planaria
168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
lactiflorea Johnston, 1828 is listed in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
(Opinion 1675, BZN 49: 157, June 1992). At present this genus includes many species
(Gibson, 2001) from the European seas. The family name AMPHIPORIDAE is in
widespread use as a valid name in the order Hoplonemertea and includes at least
twenty-six genera.
3. Rukhin (1938, p. 42) proposed a family name (with the type genus Amphipora
Schulz, 1883 (p. 245)) for Silurian-Devonian stromatoporoids (Porifera). The genus
Amphipora Schulz, 1883, the type species of which is Caunopora ramosa Phillips, 1841
(p. 19), is used as a valid generic name. It contains about 20 species (Stearn et al.,
1999). The family name AMPHIPORIDAE is also currently used as a valid name in the
order Amphiporida (Porifera, Stromatoporata). According to Stearn et al. (1999), the
family AMPHIPORIDAE Rukhin, 1938 contains five genera.
4. Of the two homonymous family-group names discussed above, the senior name
AMPHIPORIDAE McIntosh, 1873 in the order Hoplonemertea has been in widespread
use (e.g. Clarke & Johnston, 2003; Gibson, 2001, 2009) and it seems advisable to
continue using this name as valid.
5. AMPHIPORIDAE Rukhin, 1938 in the order Amphiporida (Porifera, Stromato-
porata) is also in use, with no known synonyms (Stearn et al., 1999). Considering
that the nemertean name Amphiporus is in widespread use and on the Official List it
is proposed that the stem of the poriferan type genus be emended to remove the
homonymy. The family-group names are based on the identical stem Amphipor- and
it is proposed that this homonymy be removed by using the entire generic name
Amphipora as the stem for the formation of the stromatoporoid family name, leaving
the nemertean name unaltered.
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code
the stem of the generic name Amphipora Schulz, 1883 is Amphipora-;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Amphipora
Schulz, 1883 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Cauno-
pora ramosa Phillips, 1841;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ramosa
Phillips, 1841, as published in the binomen Caunopora ramosa (specific name
of the type species of Amphipora Schulz, 1883);
(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following
names:
(a) AMPHIPORIDAE McIntosh, 1873, type genus Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831
(Nemertea);
(b) AMPHIPORAIDAE Rukhin, 1938, type genus Amphipora Schulz, 1883 (spelling
emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Porifera);
(5) to place on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology the name AMPHIPORIDAE Rukhin, 1938 (type genus Amphipora Schulz,
1883) (Porifera).
References
Clarke, A. & Johnston, N.M. 2003. Antarctic marine benthic diversity. Oceanography and
Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 41: 47-114.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 169
Ehrenberg, C.G. 1828-1831. Phytozoa turbellaria Africana et Asiatica in Phytozoorum Tabula
IV et V delineata. Pp. 53-67 in Hemprich, P.C. & Ehrenberg, C.G. (Eds.), Symbolae
Physicae, seu icones et descriptiones Corporum Naturalium novorum ... Pars Zoologica.
Animalia evertebrata exclusis insectis. 126 pp. Plates published in 1828, text in 1831.
Gibson, R. 2001. Nemertini (Nemertae), in Costello, M.J. (Ed.), European register of marine
species: a check-list of the marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their
identification. Collection Patrimoines Naturels, 50: 152-156.
Gibson, R. 2009. Amphiporidae. Jn Gibson, R. (Ed.), World Nemertina database. Accessed
through: World Register of Marine Species at http://www.marinespecies.org/
aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=122323 (Accessed 21 July, 2011).
Gibson, R. & Crandall, F.B. 1991. Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 (Nemertea): proposed
designation of Planaria lactiflorea Johnston, 1828 as the type species. Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature, 48(1): 22-23.
McIntosh, W.C. 1873-1874. A monograph of the British annelids. Part I (1873). The
nemerteans. Pp. i—xiil, 1-96, Part 1 continued (1874). Pp. 97—213d, The Ray Society,
London.
Phillips, J. 1841. Figures and descriptions of the Paleozoic fossils of Cornwall, Devon, and West
Somerset observed in the course of the Ordinance Geological Survey of that district.
Pp. 1-231. Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans, London.
Rukhin, L.B. 1938. Nizhnepaleozoiskie korally i Stromatoporoidei verkhnei chasti basseina R.
Kolymy [The Lower Paleozoic corals and Stromatoporoides of the upper part of the
Kolyma River]. Gostrest Dal’stroya. Materiyaly po tizucheniyu Kolymsko-Indigirskogo
kraya. Ser. 2. Geologiya in geomorphologiya, vyp. 10 [Contributions to the knowledge of the
Kolyma-Indigirka Land. Series 2, Geology and Geomorphology], vol. 10. 119 pp. Moscow
& Leningrad.
Schulz, E. 1883. Die Eifelkalkmulde von Hillesheim, Nebst einem palaeontologischen Anhang.
Jahrbuch der Kéniglich Preussischen Geologischen Landesanstalt (und Bergakademie) zu
Berlin ftir 1882: 158-250.
Stearn, C.W., Webby, B.D., Nestor, H. & Stock, C.W. 1999. Revised classification and
terminology of Palaeozoic stromatoporoids. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 44(1): 1-70.
Webby, B.D., Stearn, C.W. & Zhen, Y.Y. 1993. Lower Devonian (Pragian-Emsian) stromato-
poroids from Victoria. Royal Society of Victoria, Proceedings, 105: 113-186.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Case 3553
Helix atlantica Morelet & Drouét, 1857 (currently Oxychilus
(Drouetia) atlanticus; Gastropoda, Pulmonata): proposed conservation
of current usage by designation of a neotype
Antonio M. de Frias Martins
CIBIO-Acores — Centre for Research on Biodiversity and Genetic Resources,
Department of Biology, University of the Azores, 9501-801 Ponta Delgada,
Acores, Portugal (e-mail: frias@uac.pt)
Luis Silva
CIBIO-Acores — Centre for Research on Biodiversity and Genetic Resources,
Department of Biology, University of the Azores, 9501-801 Ponta Delgada,
Acores, Portugal (e-mail: Isilva@uac.pt)
Kurt Jordaens
Royal Museum for Central Africa, Leuvensesteenweg 13, B-3080 Tervuren,
Belgium & Department of Biology, Evolutionary Ecology Group, University
of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020 Antwerp, Belgium
(e-mail: kurt.jordaens@ua.ac.be)
Thierry Backeljau
Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Vautierstraat 29, B-1000
Brussels, Belgium & Department of Biology, Evolutionary Ecology Group,
University of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020 Antwerp, Belgium
(e-mail: thierry.backeljau@naturalsciences.be)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to
conserve the current usage of the name Helix atlantica Morelet & Drouét, 1857
(currently Oxychilus (Drouetia) atlanticus) for a species of pulmonate gastropod by
designating a neotype. The syntypes of this species housed in the Natural History
Museum, London are not in taxonomic accord with the prevailing usage. Originally
H. atlantica was said to occur in most islands of the archipelago of the Azores, but
later this name was uniformly used for specimens from Sao Miguel Island only, while
the syntypes are from Santa Maria Island. We request the Commission use its plenary
power to set aside the existing name-bearing types and to designate a neotype from
Sao Miguel Island, to conserve the prevailing usage and concept of the species.
Keywords: Nomenclature; taxonomy; Helix; Helix atlantica; Oxychilus atlanticus;
pulmonate gastropods; Azores.
1. Morelet & Drouét (1857) briefly described 12 species of land molluscs collected
during their expedition to the Azores without providing occurrence data, which were
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 171
added later by Morelet (1860). Morelet (1860, p. 168) stated that although Helix
atlantica Morelet & Drouét, 1857 occurs on most islands of the archipelago, it is
particularly abundant in Sao Miguel. Moreover, Morelet & Drouét (1857, p. 149)
mentioned in the description a size of 8 mm, but Morelet (1860, p. 169) observed that
the specimens of H. atlantica from Santa Maria (12 mm) and Faial (6 mm) differed
somewhat from those of Sao Miguel.
2. More than a century later, Riedel (1964) used anatomical evidence from
specimens collected by the Lund Expedition to the Azores in 1957 to corroborate
and formalise Morelet’s (1860) claims, by regarding the populations of H. atlantica
from Faial and some from Santa Maria as subspecies of the typical form of the
species from Sao Miguel. Riedel (1964, p. 31) raised Morelet’s (1860, p. 168) variety
8 minor from Faial to subspecific status maintaining Morelet’s (1860) authorship.
However, from specimens of a smaller size (7 mm) than that given by Morelet &
Drouét (1857) for the type of Helix atlantica, Riedel (1964, p. 34) described a new
subspecies for Santa Maria, viz. Oxychilus atlanticus brincki, suggesting the
possibility that the 12 mm specimens mentioned by Morelet (1860, p. 169) could
belong to a new form. The holotype of O. a. brincki is deposited at the Institute of
Zoology of the Lund University, Sweden (Riedel, 1964, p. 7). Finally, Riedel (1980)
emphasised the separation of these subspecific taxa by raising them to specific level,
a decision that since then has been consistently applied (e.g. Martins, 1989, 1991,
1999, 2005; Martins et al., 1991, 2006; Brito, 1992; Cunha et al., 1993, 2001, 2005,
2010; Rodrigues et al., 1998, 2002, 2003; Rodrigues & Gomez, 1999; Gomez &
Rodrigues, 2000; Bank et al., 2002; Rodrigues & Martins, 2003; Cameron et al.,
2007).
3. This taxonomic practice, however, entails a nomenclatural problem, as the three
specimens labelled syntypes of ‘Helix atlantica’ from Morelet’s collection deposited
at the Natural History Museum, London (BMNH 93.2.4.996-8) are from Santa
Maria. Inspection of this material revealed that one of these specimens corresponds
to Oxychilus (Drouetia) brincki Riedel, 1964, while the other two belong to an
undescribed species. Riedel (1964) did not consider these syntypes. Because the
specimens he had at hand were much smaller (7 mm) than the variety mentioned by
Morelet (1860) (12 mm), he assumed that the latter could belong to another form,
and proceeded to select a holotype for Oxychilus (Drouetia) atlanticus brincki from
the material collected by the Lund Expedition in 1957 (Riedel, 1964, pp. 27-34).
Obviously, by this action and by explicitly restricting the type locality of Helix
atlantica to Sao Miguel [‘Terra typica: Azoren (Insel Sao Miguel, restr.)’], while
regarding the Santa Maria populations as a different species, Riedel (1964, 1980)
introduced a nomenclatural problem, as all existing syntypes of ‘Helix atlantica
Morelet & Drouét, 1857’ came from Santa Maria. De Winter (1989) recognised the
variability of the taxon in Sao Miguel by describing Oxychilus (Drouetia) batalhanus
and subsequent research (Martins, 1991, 2005; Martins et al., 2010) has shown that
Drouetia in Sao Miguel is a complex of several anatomically closely related
taxonomic units. Use of the Principle of Priority to relegate de Winter’s name to
synonymy is not justifiable, for there are other taxonomic units involved in O. (D. )
atlanticus. The designation of a neotype for Helix atlantica linking the name to one
of these taxonomic units is, therefore, needed to fix the true identity of the taxon. The
proper identification of these endemic taxonomic units throughout the island,
iz Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Fig. 1. Neotype of Helix atlantica Morelet & Drouét, 1857. Collected at Lagoa Verde, Sete Cidades, Sao
Miguel, Acores, Portugal; 11-11-2010; AM de Frias Martins coll. Deposited at the Natural History
Museum, London (NHMUK 20100653). Scale bar = 1 mm.
sometimes confined to small areas, will impact on the development of conservation
policies, thus reinforcing the need to designate appropriate type material.
4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for Helix
atlantica Morelet & Drouét, 1857 and to designate specimen NHMUK
20100653, deposited at the Natural History Museum, London as the neotype;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name atlantica
Morelet & Drouét, 1857, as published in the binomen Helix atlantica and as
defined by the neotype designated in (1) above.
References
Bank, R.A., Groh, K. & Ripken, T.E.J. 2002. Catalogue and bibliography of the non-marine
Mollusca of Macaronesia. Pp. 89-235 in Falkner, G., Groh, K. & Speight, M.C.D. (Eds.),
Collectanea Malacologica. ConchBooks/Friedrich-Held-Gesellschaft, Hackenheim.
Brito, C.P. 1992. Electrophoretic results of a biochemical systematic survey of Oxychilus
(Drouetia) atlanticus and some other Zonitidae (Gastropoda: Zonitidae) in S. Miguel,
Azores. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 46: 145-151.
Cameron, R.A.D., Cunha, R.M.T da & Martins, A.M.F. 2007. Chance and necessity: land snail
faunas of Sao Miguel, Acores, compared with those of Madeira. Journal of Molluscan
Studies, 13, Ll—21
Cunha, R., Rodrigues, P. & Martins, A.M.F. 2010. List of Molluscs. Pp. 165-177 in Borges,
P.A.V., Costa, A., Cunha, R.M.T., Gabriel, R., Goncalves V., Martins, A.M.F., Melo, I.,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 173
Parente, M., Raposeiro, P., Rodrigues, P., Santos R.S., Silva, L., Vieira, P. & Vieira, V.
(Eds.), A list of the terrestrial and marine biota from the Azores. Principia, Cascais.
Cunha, R.M.T. da, Rodrigues, A.S. & Sousa, H. 2001. The influence of temperature and
photoperiod on the maturation of the seminal vesicle and albumen gland in Oxychilus
(Drouetia) atlanticus (Morelet & Drouét) (Pulmonata, Zonitidae). Arquipélago. Life and
Marine Sciences, Supplement 2, Part B: 67-70.
Cunha, R.M.T., Martins, A.M.F., Lourenco, P. & Rodrigues, A.S. 2005. Lista dos Moluscos.
Pp. 157-161 in Borges, P.A.V., Cunha, R.M.T., Gabriel, R., Martins, A.M.F., Silva, L.
& Vieira, V. (Eds.), A list of the terrestrial fauna (Mollusca and Arthropoda) and flora
(Bryophyta, Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta) from the Azores. Direcgao Regional do
Ambiente and Universidade dos Acores, Horta, Angra do Heroismo and Ponta Delgada.
Cunha, R.M.T., Rodrigues, A.S., Brito, C.P., Winnepenninckx, B. & Martins, A.M.F. 1993.
Moluscos terrestres da Ilha do Faial. Lista preliminar. Relatoérios e Comunicagées do
Departamento de Biologia. Expedicdo Cientifica Faiall93: 22: 53-59.
de Winter, A.J. 1989. Remarks on the non-marine molluscan fauna of the Azores. 3. A new
species of Drouetia from the Isle of Sao Miguel (Pulmonata: Zonitidae). Basteria, 53:
63-67.
Gomez, B.J. & Rodrigues, A.S. 2000. Calcium phosphate granules in the reproductive system
of Oxychilus atlanticus (Gastropoda: Pulmonata). Journal of Molluscan Studies, 66:
197-204.
Martins, A.M.F. 1989. Espécies novas do género Oxychilus (Gastropoda: Zonitidae) na Ilha
Terceira. Acoreana, 7: 55-71.
Martins, A.M.F. 1991. Comparative anatomy of populations of Oxychilus (Drouetia)
atlanticus (Morelet et Drouét, 1857) (Pulmonata: Zonitidae) from SAo Miguel island,
Azores. Proceedings of the Tenth International Malacological Congress (Tiibingen, 1989):
571-575.
Martins, A.M.F. 1999. Evolution and distribution of the terrestrial molluscs of the Acores.
Bulletin of the Malacological Society of London, 33: 5-6.
Martins, A.M.F. 2005. The shaping of a species: the Azorian Drouetia Gude (Pulmonata:
Zonitidae: Oxychilus) as a model. Records of the Western Australian Museum, Supplement
no. 68: 143-157.
Martins, A.M.F., Backeljau, T., Cunha, R.M.T. & Brito, C.P. 1991. Moluscos terrestres da Ilha
de Santa Maria. Lista preliminar. Relatorios e Comunicacées do Departamento de Biologia.
Santa Maria e Formigas/1990, 19: 53-59.
Martins, A.M.F., Cunha, R.M.T., Sousa, M.H. & Melo, P.J. 2006. Distribuicaéo dos moluscos
terrestres da ilha do Pico (Acores) e variabilidade de Oxychilus (Drouetia) minor
(Morelet, 1860). Relatorios e Comunicagées do Departamento de Biologia, 34: 53-67.
Martins, A.M.F., Jordaens, K. & Backeljau, T. 2010. Conchological and anatomical differen-
tiation in Drouetia land snails from Sao Miguel (Azores). Tropical Natural History,
Supplement no. 3: 313.
Morelet, A. & Drouét, H. 1857. Conchologiae Azoricae prodromus novarum specierum
diagnoses sistens. Journal de Conchyliologie, (2) 6: 148-153.
Morelet, A. 1860. Notice sur [histoire naturelle des Acores suivie d’une description des
mollusques terrestres de cet archipel. 214 pp. J.-B. Bailli¢re, Paris.
Riedel, A. 1964. Zonitidae (Gastropoda) der Azoren. Boletim do Museu Municipal do Funchal,
18: 5—60.
Riedel, A. 1980. Genera Zonitidarum. 197 pp. Backhuys Publishers, Rotterdam.
Rodrigues, A.S. & Gomez, B.J. 1999. Copulatory process in Oxychilus (Drouetia) atlanticus
(Morelet & Drouét, 1857) (Pulmonata: Zonitidae). International Journal of Invertebrate
Reproduction and Development, 36: 137-139.
Rodrigues, A.S. & Martins, R.J. 2003. Annual maturation of the perivaginal gland of
Oxychilus (Drouetia) atlanticus (Pulmonata: Zonitidae): morphological and cytological
approaches. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 69: 396-398.
Rodrigues, A.S., Cunha, R.M.T. & Gomez, B.J. 2003. The egg of Oxychilus (Drouetia)
atlanticus (Pulmonata: Zonitidae): surface structure and carbohydrate composition.
Malacologia, 45: 121-124.
174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Rodrigues, A.S., Gomez, B., Cunha, R.M.T. da & Martins, A.M.F. 1998. Maturation diagnostic
Characters in Oxychilus (Drouetia) atlanticus (Morelet & Drouét) (Pulmonata, Zonitidae).
Iberus, 16: 75-84.
Rodrigues, A.S., Gomez, B.J. & Martins, R. 2002. The perivaginal gland in Oxychilus
(Drouetia) atlanticus (Morelet & Drouét, 1857) (Pulmonata: Zonitidae): a histological
and histochemical approach. Journal of Invertebrate Reproduction and Development, 41:
95-99.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 2
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 175
Case 3555
CHILODONTIDAE Macalister, 1876 (Ciliophora), CHILODONTINAE
Eigenmann, 1910 (Pisces, Characiformes), and CHILODONTINAE Wenz,
1938 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed resolution of homonymy
between family-group names
D.G. Herbert
Natal Museum, P. Bag 9070, Pietermaritzburg 3200, South Africa
(e-mail: dherbert@nmsa.org.za)
P. Bouchet
Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue Buffon, 75007 Paris, France
(e-mail: pbouchet@mnhn.fr)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 29 and 55 of the Code, is to
remove the homonymy between the family-group names CHILODONTIDAE Macalister,
1876 (type genus Chilodon Ehrenberg, 1834 [Ciliophora]), CHILODONTINAE, an emen-
dation of CHILODINAE Eigenmann, 1910 (type genus Chilodus Miiller & Troschel, 1844
[Pisces]), and CHILODONTINAE Wenz, 1938 (type genus Chilodonta Etallon, 1859
[Gastropoda]). It is proposed to place the unused name CHILODONTIDAE Macalister,
1876 on the Official Index; to place the name CHILODONTINAE Eigenmann, 1910,
as emended by Fowler (1950), on the Official List; and that the stem of the generic
name Chilodonta Etallon, 1859 be deemed to be Chilodonta-, such that the name
CHILODONTINAE Wenz, 1938 is emended to CHILODONTAINAE Wenz, 1938.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Ciliophora; Pisces; Characiformes; Vetigastro-
poda; SEGUENZIOIDEA; CHILODIDAE; CHILODONTIDAE; CHILODONELLIDAE; homonymy;
ciliates; fish; gastropods.
1. The family-group name CHILODONTIDAE was established by Macalister (1876,
p. 71), based upon the type genus Chilodon Ehrenberg, 1834, for a group of ciliate
protozoans. Strand (1928, p. 31), because of a perceived homonymy between
Chilodon Ehrenberg, 1831 [Mollusca] and Chilodon Ehrenberg, 1834, established
Chilodonella Strand, 1928 as a substitute name for the latter, and Deroux (1970,
p. 180) established the name CHILODONELLINAE based on Chilodonella Strand, 1928.
Chilodon Ehrenberg, 1831 is in fact a nomen nudum [no description, no included
nominal species, and no indication], and Chilodon Ehrenberg, 1834 and cHILo-
DONTIDAE Macalister, 1876, remain potentially valid names.
2. The family-group name CHILODINAE was established by Eigenmann (1910,
p. 424), based on the type genus Chilodus Miller & Troschel, 1844, for a group of
characiform fish. The name Chilodus Miller & Troschel, 1844, with the type species
Chilodus punctatus Muller & Troschel, 1844 by monotypy, has been placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by Opinion 1150 (BZN 37(2): 72-74, June
176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
1980). The spelling of CHILODINAE was later emended by Fowler (1950), on the
grounds of classical grammar, to CHILODONTINAE.
3. The gastropod family-group name CHILODONTINAE was established by Wenz
(1938, p. 296), based on the type genus Chilodonta Etallon, 1859 (type species
Chilodonta clathrata Etallon, 1859, by subsequent designation of Bayan, 1874,
Pp 335%
4. Both CHILODONTINAE (attributed to Eigenmann, 1910) and CHILODONTINAE Wenz,
1938 are in current use, usually at family level. Usage of the names Chilodon
Ehrenberg, 1834 and CHILODONTIDAE Macalister, 1876 has been discontinued, and the
substitutes Chilodonella Strand, 1928 and CHILODONELLINAE Deroux, 1970 (raised to
family rank by Corliss, 1977, p. 119) are in current use (e.g. Corliss, 1979; Foissner,
1979, 1988; Lynn, 2010). However, as Chilodon Ehrenberg, 1834 and CHILODONTIDAE
Macalister, 1876 remained in use well into the 20th century (e.g. Kudo, 1931, p. 354,
where the family name was attributed in error to Bitschli), they cannot be declared
nomina oblita under Article 23.9.2 of the Code.
5. Although there is nothing in Miiller & Troschel’s description of Chilodus that
suggests that the name was based on the Greek odous (a tooth), Fowler (1950)
emended the fish name CHILODINAE to CHILODONTINAE because the genitive singular of
odous is odontos, and thus the stem for the family name would be Chilodont-. This
interpretation was seconded by Steyskal (1980), who insisted that fish names ending
in -odus have a stem in -odont-. The latinisation of the Greek odous to odus is a simple
transliteration of the Greek diphthong -ou- to -u- (cf. Grensted & Chester Bradley,
1985) and does not constitute a ‘change of ending’ in terms of Article 29.3.2 of the
Code. If one accepts this etymology of Chilodus, then the genitive stem of Chilodus
is indeed Chilodont- (Article 29.3.1 of the Code) as claimed by Fowler (1950) and his
emendation is justified. Although Géry (1977) persisted in using CHILODINAE, making
it explicit that it was intentional, after Steyskal (1980), the spelling CHILODONTINAE has
become the accepted one, usually at family level (see, e.g. Vari, 1983; Isbriicker &
Nilssen, 1988; Vari et al. 1995; Eschmeyer, 1998; Martins et al., 2000; Reis et al.,
2003; Calcagnotto et al., 2005; Nelson, 2006; Berra, 2007; Mirande, 2010). It is also
consistent with the formation of other fish family-group names e.g. DISTICHODONTIDAE
(based on Distichodus Miller & Troschel 1844), HEMIODONTIDAE (based on Hemiodus
Miiller, 1842) and PROCHILODONTIDAE (based on Prochilodus Agassiz, 1829).
6. The gastropod name CHILODONTINAE was not initially widely used. However,
since the publication of Hickman & McLean (1990), it has received increasing usage
in the literature pertaining to Recent and fossil vetigastropods, initially as a tribe
within the trochoidean EUCYCLINAE (Hickman & McLean, 1990, Hickman, 1996,
1998: Kiel & Bandel, 2001), and more recently as a family (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005;
Poppe et al., 2006; Kano, 2008; Williams et al. 2008; Kano et al. 2009; Bandel, 2010)
within the SEGUENZIOIDEA. CHILODONTINAE Wenz, 1938 has no synonym (see Bouchet
& Rocroi, 2005).
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power:
(a) to rule that the name Chilodon Ehrenberg, 1834 is suppressed for the
Purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 177
(b) to rule that the name CHILODONTIDAE Macalister, 1876 is suppressed for the
purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;
(c) to rule that CHILODONTINAE as emended by Fowler (1950) is a justified
emendation of the original spelling CHILODINAE Eigenmann, 1910;
(d) to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code, the stem of the
generic name Chilodonta Etallon, 1859 is Chilodonta-;
(2) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following
names:
(a) CHILODONELLINAE Deroux, 1970 (type genus Chilodonella Strand, 1928)
(Ciliophora);
(b) CHILODONTINAE Eigenmann, 1910 (type genus Chilodus Miiller & Troschel,
1844) (Pisces);
(Cc) CHILODONTAINAE Wenz, 1938 (type genus Chilodonta Etallon, 1859) (spell-
ing emended by the ruling in (1)(d) above) (Mollusca);
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology the following names:
(a) CHILODONTIDAE Macalister, 1876, as suppressed by the ruling in (1)(b)
above (Ciliophora);
(b) CHILODONTINAE Wenz, 1938 Gunior homonym of CHILODONTINAE Eigen-
mann, 1910 spelling emended to CHILODONTAINAE by the ruling in (1)(d)
above (Mollusca).
Acknowledgements
We thank Maurice Kottelat (Cornol, Switzerland), Sven Kullander and Anders
Waren (Swedish Museum of Natural History), Gary Rosenberg (Academy of Natural
Sciences, Philadelphia), and Richard Vari (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.)
for their input. We also acknowledge the contribution of an anonymous Commissioner
regarding the finer points of transliteration and latinisation.
References
Bandel, K. 2010. Relationships of the Triassic Eucycloidea Koken, 1897 (Mollusca, Gastro-
poda) to modern genera such as Pagodatrochus, Calliotropis and Euchelus, based on
morphology of the early shell. Bulletin of Geosciences, 85(3): 435-486.
Bayan, M. 1874. Sur la succession des assises et des faunes dans les terrains jurassiques
supérieurs. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, (3)2: 316-343.
Berra, T.M. 2007. Freshwater fish distribution. 615 pp. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bouchet, P. & Rocroi, J-P. 2005. Classification and nomenclator of gastropod families.
Malacologia, 47(1—2): 1-397.
Calcagnotto, D., Schaefer, S.A. & DeSalle, R. 2005. Relationships among characiform fishes
inferred from analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial gene sequences. Molecular Phylo-
genetics and Evolution, 36(1): 135-153.
Corliss, J.O. 1977. Annotated assignment of families and genera to the orders and classes
currently comprising the Corlissian scheme of higher classification for the phylum
Ciliophora. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 96: 104—140.
Corliss, J.O. 1979. The ciliated Protozoa. Characterization, classification and guide to the
literature, Ed. 2. 455 pp. Pergamon Press, New York.
Deroux, G. 1970. La série “Chlamydonellienne” chez les Chlamydodontidae (Holotriches,
Cyrtophorina Fauré-Frémiet). Protistologica, 6: 155—182.
178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Ehrenberg, C.G. 1831. Symbolae physicae, seu icones et descriptiones corporum naturalium
novorum aut minus cognitorum, quae ex itineribus per Libyam, Ai:gyptum, Nubiam,
Dongalam, Syriam, Arabiam, Habessiniam ... Invertebrata. Decas prima: Mollusca, folio
d. Berolini. 10 plates with explanations.
Ehrenberg, C.G. 1834. Dritter Beitrag zur ErkenntniB groBer Organisation in der richtung des
kleinsten Raumes. Abhandlungen der kéniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin,
(1833): 145-336.
Eigenmann, C.H. 1910. Catalogue of the fresh-water fishes of tropical and South temperate
America. Reports of Princeton University Expedition to Patagonia 1896-1899, (Zoology),
3) AIO LZ
Eschmeyer, W.N. 1998. Catalog of fishes. 3 vols. 2905 pp. Special Publication, California
Academy of Sciences, San Francisco.
Foissner, W. 1979. Taxonomische Studien tuber die Ciliaten des GroBglocknergebietes (Hohe
Tauern, Osterreich). Familien Microthoracidae, Chilodonellidae und Furgasoniidae.
Sitzungsberichte der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-
naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, 188: 27-43.
Foissner, W. 1988. Taxonomie und Okologie einiger Ciliaten (Protozoa, Ciliophora) des
Saprobiensystems. II. Familie Chilodonellidae. Hydrobiologia, 162: 21-45.
Fowler, H.W. 1950. Os peixes de agua doce do Brasil (2a entrega). Arquivos de Zoologia do
Estado de Sao Paulo, 6: 205-401.
Géry, J. 1977. Characoids of the world. 672 pp. TFH Publications, Neptune City.
Grensted, L.W. & Chester Bradley, J. 1985. Transliteration and latinization of Greek words.
Appendix B in International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Third edition. Inter-
national Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
Hickman, C.S. 1996. Phylogeny and patterns of evolutionary radiation in trochoidean
gastropods. Pp. 177-198 in Taylor J.D. (Ed.), Origin and Evolutionary Radiation of the
Mollusca. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hickman, C.S. 1998. Superfamily Trochoidea. Pp. 671-690 in Beesley, P.L., Ross, G.J.B. &
Wells, A. (Eds.), Mollusca: the southern synthesis. Fauna of Australia, vol. 5, Part B. viii,
565-1234 pp. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Hickman, C.S. & McLean, J.H. 1990. Systematic revision and suprageneric classification of
trochacean gastropods. Science series, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County:
35: 1-169.
Isbriicker, L.J.H. & Nijssen, H. 1988. Review of the South American characiform fish genus
Chilodus, with description of a new species, C. gracilis (Pisces, Characiformes, chilo-
dontidae). Beaufortia, 38(3): 47-56.
Kano, Y. 2008. Vetigastropod phylogeny and a new concept of Seguenzioidea: independent
evolution of copulatory organs in the deep-sea habitats. Zoologica Scripta, 37: 1-21.
Kano, Y., Chikyu, E. & Warén, A. 2009. Morphological, ecological and molecular characteri-
zation of the enigmatic planispiral snail genus Adeuomphalus (Vetigastropoda: Seguenzi-
oidea). Journal of Molluscan Studies, 75: 397-418.
Kiel, S. & Bandel, K. 2001. Trochidae (Archaeogastropoda) from the Campanian of Torallola
in northern Spain. Acta Geologica Polonica, 51(2): 137-154.
Kudo, R.R. 1931. Handbook of protozoology. 451 pp. Thomas, Springfield.
Lynn, D.H. 2008 [corrected printing 2010]. The ciliated Protozoa. Ed. 3. xxxiv, 606 pp.
Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York.
Macalister, A. 1876. An introduction to animal morphology and systematic zoology. Part 1.
Invertebrata. 461 pp. Longmans, Green & Co., London.
Martins, C., Venere, P.C., Mestriner, C.A., Cestari, M.M., Ferreira, R. & Galetti, P.M. 2000.
Chromosome relationships between Anostomidae and Chilodontidae fish (Characi-
formes). Cytologia, 65: 153-160.
Mirande, J.M. 2010. Phylogeny of the family Characidae (Teleostei: Characiformes): from
characters to taxonomy. Neotropical Ichthyology, 8(3): 385-568.
Nelson, J.S. 2006. Fishes of the world. Ed. 4. 624 pp. Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
Poppe, G.T., Tagaro, S.P. & Dekker, H. 2006. The Seguenziidae, Chilodontidae, Trochidae,
Calliostomatidae and Solariellidae of the Philippine Islands. Visaya, Supplement 2: 1-228.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 9
Reis, R.E., Kullander S.O. & Ferraris C.J. 2003. Check list of the freshwater fishes of South and
Central America. 742 pp. Pontificia Universidade Catélica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto
Alegre.
Steyskal, G.C. 1980. The grammar of family-group names as exemplified by those of fishes.
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 93(1): 168-177.
Strand, E. 1928. Miscellanea nomenclatorica zoologica et palaeontologica I-II. Archiv fiir
Naturgeschichte, 92(A8): 30-75.
Vari, R.P. 1983. Phylogenetic relationships of the families Curimatidae, Prochilodontidae,
Anostomidae, and Chilodontidae (Pisces: Characiformes). Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology, 378: 1-60.
Vari, R.P., Castro, R.M.C. & Raredon, S.J. 1995. The Neotropical fish family Chilodontidae
(Teleostei: Characiformes): A phylogenetic study and a revision of Caenotropus Giinther.
Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 577: i-vi, 1-32.
Wenz, W. 1938. Gastropoda. Allgemeiner Teil und Prosobranchia. Prosobranchia 2, vol. 6(1):
241-480 in Wenz, W., Handbuch der Paldozoologie. Gebriider Borntraeger, Berlin.
Williams, S.T. Karube, S. & Ozawa, T. 2008. Molecular systematics of Vetigastropoda:
Trochidae, Turbinidae and Trochoidea redefined. Zoologica Scripta, 37: 483-506.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 93
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Case 3558
Pleurotoma scabriuscula Brugnone, 1862 (currently Mangelia
scabriuscula; Mollusca, Gastropoda, CONOIDEA): proposed conservation
Daniele Scarponi
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra e Geologico-Ambientali — Via Zamboni,
67 40126 Bologna — Italy (e-mail: daniele.scarponi@unibo.it)
Alessandro Ceregato
ISMAR CNR — Via Gobetti, 101 40129 Bologna, Italy
(e-mail: alessandro.ceregato@bo.ismar.cnr.it)
Giano Della Bella
Via dei Cedri, 91 40050 Monterenzio Bologna, Italy
John K. Tucker
Illinois Natural History Survey, National Great Rivers Research and
Education Center, 1 Confluence Way, East Alton, Illinois 62024, U.S.A.
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, is to
conserve the specific name Pleurotoma scabriuscula Brugnone, 1862 (currently
Mangelia scabriuscula, CONIDAE) originally published as Pleurotoma scabriusculum,
a junior primary homonym of Pleurotoma scabriuscula Edwards, 1861 (currently
Crassispira scabriuscula, TURRIDAE). Both names are in use, even though the latter is
infrequently reported in the literature, and they have not been considered congeneric
since 1899 and are unlikely ever to be treated as congeneric again. We propose that
the name Pleurotoma scabriuscula Brugnone, 1862 (which does not have junior
synonyms) be conserved by ruling that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior
primary homonym.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; CONOIDEA; CONIDAE; TURRIDAE;
Mangelia; Raphitoma; Turris; Crassispira; Pleurotoma; Pleurotoma_ scabriuscula;
gastropods; Eocene; Pliocene; Pleistocene; Recent; Great Britain; Italy.
1. The genus Pleurotoma (a Latin neologism from Greek zAgvpd = side, and tour
= cut) was established by Lamarck (1799, p. 73) based on Murex babylonius
Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 753), which is the type species by monotypy. By the mid-19th
century Pleurotoma became one of the largest prosobranch genera with more than
700 species. However, in many cases the use of Pleurotoma for generic affiliation was
a result of a tradition (Seguenza, 1873) or the consequence of Pleurotoma being very
broadly defined. Hence, the need for a stricter definition of Lamarck’s genus has been
felt from the early-mid-19th century. Indeed, genera such as Bela Leach in Gray,
1847, Crassispira Swainson, 1840, Mangelia Risso, 1826, and Perrona Schumacher,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 181
1817 are examples of taxa originating from Pleurotoma revisions (see among others
Swainson, 1840; Edwards, 1857). Consequently, starting from the mid-19th century,
several nominal species, such as Pleurotoma scabriuscula Edwards, 1861 and Pleuro-
toma scabriusculum Brugnone, 1862, previously attributed to Lamarck’s genus, were
re-assigned to other genera.
2. For all of the 20th century Murex babylonius Linnaeus, 1758 was generally
considered as the type species of Turris Réding, 1798 (see among others Powell, 1966;
Kilburn, 1983). It was also designated as the type species for Turris Batsch, 1789
(p. 691) by Dubois & Bour (2010, p. 171). Turris Batsch was established in 1789 so
it has precedence over Pleurotoma Lamarck, 1799 and Turris Roding, 1798.
3. The genus Mangelia was described by Risso (1826, p. 221). The description of
this genus was very short, and the type material for the type species is untraceable
(Arnaud, 1978; Spada & Della Bella, 2010). Therefore the validity of the genus was
intensely debated for almost two centuries. As a consequence several new genera were
proposed that are now considered to be synonyms of Mangelia (Spada & Della Bella,
2010). The type species Mangelia striolata Risso, 1826 (p. 221) is a senior subjective
synonym of M. bertrandi Payraudeau, 1827 (Spada & Della Bella, 2010).
4. The turrid species Pleurotoma scabriuscula Edwards, 1861 (p. 254) from the
Eocene of Great Britain, is rarely cited in the literature (see Tucker, 2004 for
references). St. John Burton (1933) was the first author to transfer the species to the
genus Drillia Gray, 1838, whereas the most recent reference assigns Pleurotoma
scabriuscula Edwards to the genus Crassispira Swainson, 1840, subgenus Tripia
Gregorio, 1890 (see Glibert, 1960). Apart from the above cited authors, to our
knowledge only Newton (1891) reported Pleurotoma scabriuscula Edwards, 1861
(under the genus Pleurotoma Lamarck).
5. The name Pleurotoma scabriuscula (cited as Pleurotoma scabriusculum) was
established by Brugnone (1862, p. 39) for a fossil mangeliid from the Plio—Pleistocene
of Italy (Scarponi & Della Bella, 2010 and references therein). Pleurotoma is Greek
in origin and its gender is feminine (see Lamarck, 1801, p. 84), therefore Brugnone’s
spelling scabriusculum must be corrected. Just a few years after its first description,
P. scabriusculum was transferred to the subgenus Mangelia Risso, 1826 by Seguenza
(1873, p. 298). Bellardi (1877) was the first to use Mangelia at genus rank to contain
Brugnone’s species (fide Tucker, 2004). Bellardi’s combination was followed by
almost all subsequent authors, although a few used genera are now considered junior
synonyms of Mangelia (1.e. Mangilia, Cythara (partim) etc.; see Spada & Della Bella,
2010 for an overview on synonymy of the genus Mangelia) or allied genera such as
Raphitoma (see Seguenza, 1875). Hence, after 1899 the Brugnone species was
unanimously considered to belong to the genus Mangelia or one of its synonyms.
Indeed, almost 150 years after its description, this well known mangeliid has (to our
knowledge) only been attributed to Pleurotoma by Moroni & Paonita (1963), but
more than twenty times to Mangelia or its synonyms (see Tucker, 2004; Scarponi &
Della Bella, 2010).
6. Both names, Pleurotoma scabriuscula Edwards, 1861 (currently Crassispira
scabriuscula) and Pleurotoma scabriuscula Brugnone, 1862 (currently Mangelia
scabriuscula) have been in use for over a hundred years. Both have been referred to
different genera that are well separated morphologically and phylogenetically and it
is unlikely that they will be treated as congeneric in the future. Furthermore,
182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Brugnone’s species has no available synonym to use as a substitute name. Introduc-
ing a new replacement name for the widely and well known name Pleurotoma
scabriuscula Brugnone, 1862 would result in confusion and loss of information. This
application for the conservation of prevailing usage is submitted in the interest of
stability and in accordance with Article 23.9.5 of the Code (that is, names not
considered congeneric after 1899).
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that the specific name Pleurotoma scabriuscula
Brugnone, 1862 is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym
of Pleurotoma scabriuscula Edwards, 1861;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) scabriuscula Brugnone, 1862, as published in the binomen Pleurotoma
scabriusculum, with the endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of
being a junior primary homonym of Pleurotoma scabriuscula Edwards,
1861 as ruled in (1) above;
(b) scabriuscula Edwards, 1861, as published in the binomen Pleurotoma
scabriuscula.
References
Arnaud, P.M. 1978. Révision des taxa malacologiques Méditerranéens introduits par Antoine
Risso. Annales du Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle de Nice, 5: 101—150.
Batsch, A.J.G.C. 1789. Versuch einer Anleitung, zur Kenntniss und Geschichte der Thiere und
Mineralien, fiir akademische Vorlesungen entworfen, und mit den néthigsten Abbildungen
versehen. Zweyter Theil. Besondre Geschichte der Insekten, Gewtirme und Mineralien.
Pp. 529-860. Akademische Buchhandlung, Jena.
Bellardi, L. 1877. I molluschi dei terreni terziarii del Piemonte e della Liguria. Parte II.
Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, (2)29: 1-373.
Brugnone, G.A. 1862. Memoria sopra alcuni Pleurotomi fossili dei Dintorni di Palermo. 41 pp.,
1 pls. F. Lao, Palermo.
Dubois, A. & Bour, R. 2010. The distinction between family-series and class-series nomina in
zoological nomenclature, with emphasis on the nomina created by Batsch (1788, 1789)
and on higher nomenclature of turtles. Bonn Biological Bulletin, 57: 149-171.
Edwards, F.E. 1857. A monograph of the Eocene Mollusca, or descriptions of shells from the
older Tertiaries of England. Part UI, No. Il. Prosobranchiata (continued), 9: 181-240, pls.
24-27, Palaeontographical Society, London.
Edwards, F.E. 1861. A monograph of the Eocene Mollusca, or descriptions of shells from the
older Tertiaries of England. Part III, No. II. Prosobranchiata (continued), 12: 241-330,
pls. 28-33. Palaeontographical Society, London.
Glibert, M. 1960. Les Conacea fossiles du Cénozoique étranger des collections de I’Institut
Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique. Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de
Belgique, Mémoire, (2)64: 1-132.
Kilburn, R.N. 1983. Turridae (Mollusca: Gastropoda) of southern Africa and Mozambique.
Part 1. Subfamily Turrinae. Annals of the Natal Museum, 25: 549-585.
Lamarck, J.B. M. de. 1799. Prodrome d’une nouvelle classification des coquilles, comprenant
une rédaction appropriée des caractéres génériques, et I’établissement d’un grand nombre
de genres nouveaux. Mémoires de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris, 1: 63-91.
Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de. 1801. Systéme des animaux sans vertébres, ou Tableau général des
classes, des ordres et des genres de ces animaux; Présentant leurs caractéres essentiels et leur
distribution, d’aprés la considération, et suivant arrangement établi dans les galeries du
Muséum d Hist. Naturelle, parmi leurs dépouilles conservées; Précédé du discours
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 183
d ouverture du Cours de Zoologie, donné dans le Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle l’an
& de la République. viii, 432 pp. Lamarck and Deterville, Paris.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Moroni, M.A. & Paonita, G. 1963. Nuovi dati sul Pliocene e il Quaternario dei dintorni di
Palermo. 3) Una malacofauna delle sabbie gialle pliocéniche di Altavilla. Rivista
Mineraria Siciliana, 14: 27-65.
Newton, R.B. 1891. Systematic list of Frederick E. Edwards Collection of British Oligocene and
Eocene Mollusca in the British Museum (Natural History), with references to the
type-specimens from similar horizons contained in other collections belonging to the
Geological Department of the Museum. xxviii, 365 pp. British Museum (Natural History),
London.
Powell, A.W.B. 1967. The family Turridae in the Indo-Pacific. Part 1a. The subfamily Turrinae
concluded. Indo-Pacific Mollusca, 1: 409-444.
Risso, A. 1826. Histoire naturelle des principales productions de Il’Europe Méridionale et
particuliérement de celle des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes, vol. 4. vii, 439 pp.,
12 pls. F.-G. Levrault, Paris.
Scarponi, D. & Della Bella, G. 2010. Molluschi marini del Plio-Pleistocene dell’ Emilia-Romagna
e della Toscana. Superfamiglia Conoidea, vol. 3 — Conidae Il. 128 pp., 21 pls. L’Editore
Piceno, Ancona.
Seguenza, G. 1873. Studii stratigrafici sulla formazione pliocenica dell’Italia Meridionale.
Bollettino del Regio Comitato Geologico d'Italia, 9-10: 294-300.
Seguenza, G. 1875. Studii stratigrafici sulla formazione pliocenica dell’Italia Meridionale.
Bollettino del Regio Comitato Geologico d'Italia, 7-8: 199-211.
Spada, G. & Della Bella, G. 2010. Identification of Mangelia striolata, type species of the genus
Mangelia Risso, 1826. Bollettino Malacologico, 46: 76-83.
St. John Burton, E. 1933. Faunal horizons of the Barton Beds in Hampshire. Proceedings of the
Geologists’ Association, 44: 131-167.
Swainson, W. 1840. A treatise on malacology or shells and shell-fish. viii, 419 pp. Longman
et al., London.
Tucker, J.K. 2004. Catalog of Recent and fossil turrids (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Zootaxa, 682:
1-1295.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 94
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Case 3531
Sematura Dalman, 1825 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, SEMATURIDAE):
proposed precedence over Mania Hubner, 1821
Matthew J.W. Cock
CABI, Rue des Grillons 1, CH-2800 Delémont, Switzerland
(e-mail: m.cock@cabi.org; mjywcock@btinternet.com)
Gerardo Lamas
Departamento de Entomologia, Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Ay. Arenales 1256, Apartado 14-0434,
Lima-14, Peru (e-mail: glamasm@unmsm.edu.pe; paititia@yahoo.com)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the generic name Sematura Dalman, 1825 (Lepidoptera, SEMATURIDAE)
which is well-established for a small number of moths widespread in the Neotropical
region. Because it is also the type genus of the small family SEMATURIDAE, it 1s usually
cited or illustrated in general works on Lepidoptera and insects in the region. The
name is threatened by its rarely used senior subjective synonym, Mania Hiibner,
1821, which dropped out of use because it was incorrectly considered to be an
unavailable homonym. It is proposed that Sematura Dalman be given precedence
over Mania Hubner under the plenary power of the Commission, in the interest of
nomenclatural stability.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Lepidoptera; SEMATURIDAE; Sematura;
Mania; Nothus; Sematura lunus; Mania empedoclaria; moths; Neotropical Region.
1. The Lepidoptera family SEMATURIDAE contains a small number of species from
the Neotropical region and South Africa. It is based on the generic name Sematura
Dalman, 1825 (p. 407), which has been widely used in the limited literature on this
family since the middle of the 19th century. An earlier available name, Mania
Hiibner, 1821, which had been thought to be unavailable, now threatens the stability
of the type genus of this family.
2. Mania was established by Hiibner (1821, p. [3]) for the single species Lars
empedoclaria Hubner, [1819], a junior subjective synonym of Papilio empedocles
Cramer, 1779 (Fletcher, 1979), although it has also been considered a junior
subjective synonym of Phalaena lunus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 508) (Hampson, 1918,
p. 368).
3. Westwood (1879, p. 510) incorrectly considered Mania Hubner, 1821 to be a
junior homonym of Mania Treitschke, 1825 (p. 294), and introduced the replacement
name Manidia. However, Mania Hiibner pre-dates Mania Treitschke, so Westwood’s
replacement was unjustified.
4. Sematura was established by Dalman (1825, p. 407) to include Phalaena lunus
Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 508), Papilio aegisthus Fabricius, 1781 (p. 20) and Papilio
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 185
empedocles Cramer, 1779 (p. 11). Guenée (1857, pp. 16-19) used the genus Sematura,
listing Mania as a synonym, to include the species Phalaena lunus, Sematura selene
Guenée, 1857, S. diana Guenée, 1857, Papilio empedocles and S. phoebe Guenée,
1857. Hampson (1918, p. 367) incorrectly referred to Sematura as Guenée’s genus,
but nevertheless selected as its type species Phalaena lunus.
5. Several authors have used the generic name Nothus Billberg (1820, p. 85) for
Phalaena lunus and Papilio empedocles, but Nothus is a junior homonym of Nothus
Olivier, 1811 (p. 383), and also its type species was designated as Phalaena lunus by
Fletcher (1979), so making it a senior objective synonym of Sematura. This invalid
homonym is not germane to the status of Sematura and Mania, but continues to
confuse the nomenclature of this genus.
6. The species of Sematura have not had the benefit of a recent revision, hence there
is continuing uncertainty about the number of species and their identity. Gaede
(1930, p. 832) suggested that empedocles and lunus are likely to be one species, and
Forbes (1942, p. 289) treats /unus as the male and empedocles as the female synonym.
In our opinion, although it is quite likely that Linnaeus described the male and
Cramer described the female of the same species, this is not a foregone conclusion as
there appear to be other similar species in the genus. Until the genus is revised this
will not be clear, however all authors have always treated the two specific names as
congeneric, and there seems no doubt that the two generic names are subjective
synonyms.
7. That being the case, Mania has precedence over Sematura. However, Sematura
is in common usage, while Mania is almost forgotten. Forbes (1942, p. 289) treats
Mania and Manidia as synonyms of Sematura, commenting correctly that ‘Mania
Hubner 1823 [sic], is valid over Mania Tr. 1825, but only the latter has had any
currency in the last century.’ More than 50 years later, this is still true.
8. Unfortunately Sematura cannot be given precedence over Mania under article
23.9.2 of the Code, as Mania has been used as valid at least four times since 1899.
Kaye (1901, p. 150) used it with Sematura placed in brackets afterwards (misspelt as
Semaetura) for empedoclaria (= empedocles) and actaeon Felder (= /unus) in his
preliminary list of the moths of Trinidad. In a popular article, Janet (1902, p. 349)
referred to Mania empedoclaria Hibner as inhabiting ‘. . .Haiti et quelques autre [sic]
iles des Antilles’. Dyar (1914, p. 244) used it for /unus and empedocles in his treatment
of the moths of the Canal Zone, Panama. Fischer-Sigwart (1923, p. 22) mentioned
Mania lunus in a list of Brazilian Lepidoptera. Apart from these four instances, all
publications located referring to the genus since 1899 have used either Sematura
(Pagenstecher, 1907; Longstaff, 1912; Pfeiffer, 1917; Hampson, 1918; Jordan, 1923;
Eltringham, 1925; Kaye & Lamont, 1927; Eltringham, 1929; Gaede, 1930; Brues &
Melander, 1932; Eltringham, 1933; Forbes, 1942; D’Almeida, 1943; Portmann, 1945;
Cardoso, 1949; Costa Lima, 1950; Biezanko et al., 1957; Fulton, 1967; Batten &
Batten, 1968; Stanek, 1969; Smith, 1972; Dickens, 1974; Sbordoni & Forestiero,
1985; Beutelspacher, 1988, 1992; Scoble, 1992; Minet & Scoble, 1998; Fanger, 1999;
Salazar, 2001; Viana & Costa, 2001; Cock, 2003; Numfiez, 2004; Corona et al., 2005;
Chacon & Montero, 2007; Regier et al., 2008; Heppner, 2008; Mutanen et al., 2010),
Manidia (Calvert & Calvert, 1917, p. 64) or Nothus (Laithwaite et al., 1975; Lamas,
1989; Hogue, 1993; Racheli & Racheli, 1996; Purser & Garnier, 2007; Scott et al.,
2010).
186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
9. Internet usage is similarly based on Sematura and Nothus, with no further use of
Mania or Manidia. Thus, the number of hits with Google for different combinations
of Sematura spp. together with Lepidoptera on 1 July 2010 was as follows: Mania
lunus 1; Mania empedocles 1; Manidia lunus 0; Manidia empedocles 0; Sematura lunus
110; Sematura empedocles 9; Nothus lunus 40; Nothus empedocles 22. It should be
noted that the use of a combination does not mean that this is the accepted name on
a given website; it may be listed as a synonym or incorrect name. However, it is clear
that Mania is not in common usage for the two principal species of Sematura.
10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name Sematura Dalman, 1825 precedence
over the name Mania Hiibner 1821, whenever the two are considered to be
synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Sematura Dalman, 1825 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Hampson (1918) Phalaena lunus Linnaeus, 1758, with the
endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Mania Hubner, 1821
whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) Mania Hubner, 1821 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Lars
empedoclaria Hiibner, [1819], with the endorsement that it is not to be
given precedence over Sematura Dalman, 1825 whenever the two are
considered to be synonyms;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) /unus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phalaena lunus, specific
name of the type species of Sematura Dalman, 1825;
(b) empedoclaria Hubner, [1819], as published in the binomen Lars empedoc-
laria, specific name of the type species of Mania Hiibner, 1821.
References
Batten, A.G.M. & Batten, A.M. 1968. Seven weeks in Jamaica, winters 1966-1967. Entomolo-
gist’s Record and Journal of Variation, 80(1): 3-7.
Beutelspacher, C.R. 1988. Revision de la familia Uraniidae (Insecta: Lepidoptera) en México.
Anales del Instituto de Biologia. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (Zoologia),
58(1): 265-325.
Beutelspacher, C.R. 1992. Catalogo de la Coleccién Roberto Miller (Lepidoptera: Heterocera)
del Museo de Historia Natural de la Ciudad de México. Cuadernos. Instituto de Biologia.
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, 15: 1-465.
Biezanko, C.M., Ruffinelli, A. & Carbonell, C.S. 1957. Lepidoptera del Uruguay. Lista anotada
de especies. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomia. Universidad de la Republica (Montevideo),
46: 1-152.
Billberg, G.J. 1820. Enumeratio insectorum in Museo Gust. Joh. Billberg. 138 pp. Typis
Gadelianis, Holmiae [= Stockholm], Sweden.
Brues, C.T. & Melander, A.L. 1932. Classification of insects. A key to the known families of
insects and other terrestrial arthropods. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology
at Harvard College, 73: 1-672.
Calvert, A.C.S. & Calvert, P.P. 1917. A year of Costa Rican natural history. xxii, 577 pp. The
Macmillan Company, New York.
Cardoso, A.S. 1949. Lepiddpteros de Alagoas. Revista de Entomologia (Rio de Janeiro),
20(1/3): 427-436.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 187
Chacon, I.A. & Montero, J.J. 2007. Mariposas de Costa Rica. Butterflies and moths of Costa
Rica. 366 pp. Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, Santo Domingo de Heredia.
Cock, M.J.W. (2003) On the number of species of moths (Lepidoptera) in Trinidad and
Tobago. Living World, Journal of the Trinidad and Tobago Field Naturalists’ Club, 2003:
49-58.
Corona, A.M., Acosta, R. & Morrone, J.J. 2005. Estudios biogeograficos en insectos de la Zona
de Transicién Mexicana. Pp. 71-87 in Morrone, J.J. & Llorente Bousquets, J. (Eds.),
Componentes bidticos principales de la Entomofauna Mexicana. Volumen 1. Las Prensas de
Ciencias, UNAM, Mexico.
Costa Lima, A. da. 1950. Insetos do Brasil, 6.° Tomo. Lepidopteros 2.“ Parte. 420 pp. Escola
Nacional de Agronomia, Rio de Janeiro.
Cramer, P. 1779. De uitlandsche Kapellen voorkomende in de drie Waereld-Deelen Asia, Africa
en America — Papillons exotiques des trois parties du monde I’ Asie, I’ Afrique et l’ Amerique,
part 17. 11-20 pp. J. van Schoonhoven, Amsterdam.
Dalman, J.W. 1825. Forsok att narmare bestamma slagtet Castnia Fabr., samt de detsamma
tillhorande Arter. Kongl. Vetenskaps-Academiens Handlingar, 1824(2): 392-407.
D’Almeida, R.F. 1943. Sdbre a nomenclatura de alguns grupos superiores da Ordem
Lepidoptera. 2.a nota: Familias Lasiocampidae, Lymantriidae, Mimallonidae e Uraniidae
e superfamilia Arctioidea. Arquivos do Museu Paranaense, 3: 131-143.
Dickens, M. 1974. The world of moths. 128 pp. The Macmillan Company, New York.
Dyar, H.G. 1914. Report on the Lepidoptera of the Smithsonian Biological Survey of the
Panama Canal Zone. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 47: 139-350.
Eltringham, H. 1925. On a new sense organ in certain Lepidoptera. Transactions of the
Entomological Society of London, 1925: 7-9, plate II.
Eltringham, H. 1929. On a new organ in certain Lepidoptera. Transactions of the Entomological
Society of London, 77: 471-473.
Eltringham, H. 1933. The senses of insects. ix, 126 pp. Methuen & Co. Ltd., London.
Fabricius, J.C. 1781. Species Insectorum exhibentes eorum differentias specificas, synonyma
auctorum, loca natalia, metamorphosin adiectis observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 2.
517 pp. C.E. Bohnii, Hamburgi & Kilonii.
Fanger, H. 1999. Comparative morphology of tergal phragmata occurring in the dorsal thoraco-
abdominal junction of ditrysian Lepidoptera (Insecta). Zoomorphology, 119(3): 163-183.
Fischer-Sigwart, H. 1923. Schmetterlinge vom Amazonenstrome in Brasilien im Zofinger
Museum. Societas Entomologica, 38(6): 21-23.
Fletcher, D.S. 1979. The generic names of moths of the world. Volume 3. Geometroidea. 263 pp.
British Museum (Natural History), London.
Forbes, W.T.M. 1942. The Lepidoptera of Barro Colorado Island, Panama. No. 2. Bulletin of
the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 90: 265-406, pls 9-16.
Fulton, M. 1967. A list of Lepidoptera collected in Costa Rica. Revista de Biologia Tropical
(San José), 14(2): 287-292.
Gaede, M. 1930. Uranidae. Pp. 829-837, pls. 138-139 in Seitz, A. (Ed.), The Macrolepidoptera
of the world; a systematic description of the hitherto known Macrolepidoptera, ed. in
collaboration with well-known specialists. Volume 6. A. Kernen, Stuttgart.
Guenée, A. 1857. Uranides et Phalénites Tome 1. Jn Boisduval, [J.A.] & Guenée, [A.] Histoire
naturelle des insectes; spécies général des lépidoptéres. Tome IX. 514 pp. Roret, Paris.
Hampson, G.F. 1918. Some small families of the Lepidoptera which are not included in the key
to the families in the catalogue of Lepidoptera Phalaenae, a list of the families and
subfamilies of the Lepidoptera with their types and a key to the families. Novitates
Zoologicae, 25(2): 366-394.
Heppner, J.B. 2008. American swallowtail moths (Lepidoptera: Sematuridae). P. 149 in
Capinera, J.L. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of entomology, 2nd edition. Springer, Netherlands.
Hogue, C.L. 1993. Latin American insects and entomology. xiv, 536pp. University of California
Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Hiibner, J. 1821. Index exoticorum lepidopterorum, in foliis 244 a Jacobo Hiibner hactenus
effigiatorum; adjectis denominationibus emendatis, tam communioribus quam exactioribus. 7
pp. The author, Augsburg.
188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Janet, A. 1902. Les Papillons. Causeries scientifiques de la Société Zoologique de France, 1(9):
309-350, 1 plate.
Jordan, K. 1923. On a sensory organ found on the head of many Lepidoptera. Novitates
Zoologicae, 30(1): 155-158.
Kaye, W.J. 1901. A preliminary catalogue of the Lepidoptera Heterocera of Trinidad.
Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1901: 115-158, pls. 5-6.
Kaye, W.J. & Lamont, N. 1927. A catalogue of the Trinidad Lepidoptera Heterocera (moths).
Memoirs of the Department of Agriculture, Trinidad and Tobago, 3: 1-144.
Laithwaite, E., Watson, A. & Whalley, P.E.S. 1975. The dictionary of butterflies and moths in
colour. 298 pp. George Rainbird Ltd., London.
Lamas, G. 1989. Lista preliminar de los Saturniidae, Oxytenidae, Uraniidae y Sematuridae
(Lepidoptera) de la Zona Reservada de Tambopata, Madre de Dios, Peru. Revista
Peruana de Entomologia, 31: 57-60.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema nature per regna tria nature, secundum classes, ordines, genera,
species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. Editio decima, reformata.
pp. [1-4], 1-824. Salvius, Holmize [=Stokholm].
Longstaff, G.B. 1912. Butterfly-hunting in many lands. Notes of a field naturalist. xx, 729 pp.
Longmans, Green & Co., London.
Minet, J. & Scoble, M.J. 1998. 17. The Drepanoid / Geometroid assemblage. Pp. 301-320 in
Kristensen, N.P. (Ed.), Lepidoptera, butterflies and moths. Vol. 1. Evolution, systematics
and biogeography. Handbook of Zoology, Volume 4. Arthropoda: Insecta, Part 35. Walter
de Gruyter Inc. New York.
Mutanen, M., Wahlberg, N. & Kaila, L. 2010. Comprehensive gene and taxon coverage
elucidates radiation patterns in moths and butterflies. Proceedings of the Royal Society
(B), 277(1695): 2839-2848.
Nifiez, R. 2004. Lepidoptera (Insecta) de Topes de Collantes, Sancti Spiritus, Cuba. Boletin de
la Sociedad Entomologica Aragonesa, 34: 151-159.
Olivier, G.A. 1811. Encyclopédie méthodique: Histoire naturelle. Insectes, vol. 8. 722 pp. H.
Agasse, Imprimeur-Libraire, Paris.
Pagenstecher, A.A.F. 1907. Die Lepidopterenfauna der Antillen. Jahrbticher des Nassauischen
Vereins fiir Naturkunde, 60: 91-102.
Pfeiffer, L. 1917. Bemerkungen tber einige von Herrn A. H. Fass] in Columbien gefangene
Castnia-, Urania- und Homidiana-Arten. Entomologische Zeitschrift, 31(3): 11-12.
Portmann, A. 1945. The beauty of butterflies. 11 pp. Iris Books, New York.
Purser, B.H. & Garnier, M. 2007. La lépidofaune guyanaise — Originalité et abondance. Pp.
6-12 in Lacomme, D. & Manil, L. (Eds.), Lépidopteres de Guyane. Tome 1. Généralités —
Bibliographie. Hétérocéres 1. Lépidoptéristes Parisiens, Paris.
Racheli, L. & Racheli, T. 1996. Note preliminari sugli Oxytenidae e Sematuridae dell’ Ecuador
(Lepidoptera). Bollettino della Societa Entomologica Italiana, 128(2): 151-154.
Regier, J.C., Cook, C.P., Mitter, C. & Hussey, A. 2008. A phylogenetic study of the
‘bombycoid complex’ (Lepidoptera) using five protein-coding nuclear genes, with com-
ments on the problem of macrolepidopteran phylogeny. Systematic Entomology, 22(1):
175-189.
Salazar, J.A. 2001. Contribucién al conocimiento de las especies pertenecientes a los géneros
Homidiana Strand y Sematura Dalman (Lepidoptera: Sematuridae) de Colombia. Boletin
Cientifico, Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad de Caldas, 5: 125-126.
Sbordoni, V. & Forestiero, S. 1985. The world of butterflies. 312 pp. Blandford Press, Dorset.
Schmid, M. & Endicott, B.M. 1968. Mariposas de Venezuela. xi, 67 pp. L. Levison Junr.,
Copenhagen.
Scoble, M.J. 1992. The Lepidoptera: form, function and diversity. 404 pp. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Scott, J.L., Kawahara, A.Y., Skevington, J.H., Yen, S.-H., Sami, A., Smith, M.L. & Yack, J.E.
2010. The evolutionary origins of ritualized acoustic signals in caterpillars. Nature
Communications, 1(4): 1-9.
Smith, N.G. 1972. Migrations of the day-flying moth Urania in Central and South America.
Caribbean Journal of Science, 12: 45-48.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 189
Stanek, V.J. 1969. The pictorial encyclopedia of insects. 544 pp. Hamlyn, London.
Treitschke, [G].F. 1825. Die Schmetterlinge von Europa, vol. 5(1). xvi, 414 pp. Gerhard
Fleischer, Leipzig.
Viana, T.M.B. & Costa, E.C. 2001. Lepiddépteros associados a duas comunidades florestais em
Itaara, RS. Ciéncia Florestal (Santa Maria), 11(1): 67-80.
Westwood, J.O. 1879. Observations on the Uraniidae, a family of lepidopterous insects, with
a synopsis of the family and a monograph of Coronidia, one of the genera of which it is
composed. Transactions of the Zoological Society, 10: 507-542, pls. 85-88.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 198.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Case 3503
Papilio hesperus Westwood, 1843 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, PAPILIONIDAE):
proposed conservation by the suppression of Papilio hesperus
Fabricius, 1793 (NYMPHALIDAE)
Torben B. Larsen
Jacobys alle 2, 1806 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
(e-mail: torbenlarsen@btinternet.com)
Masaya Yago
The University Museum, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo,
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113—0033, Japan (e-mail: myago@um-u-tokyo.ac.jp)
R.I. Vane-Wright
Department of Entomology, the Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 5BD, UK; and Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology,
University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NR, U.K.
(e-mail: dickvanewright@btinternet.com)
Mark Williams
PO Box 12538, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa
(e-mail: mark.williams@up.ac.za)
Kyoichiro Ueda
Kitakyushu Museum of Natural History and Human History,
2-4-1 Higashida, Yahatahigashi-ku, Kitakyushu 805-0071, Japan
(e-mail: ueda@kmnh.jp)
Takashi Yokochi
1-10-26 Shonan, Owariasahi, Aichi 488-0823, Japan
(e-mail: tyokochi@ga2.so-net.ne.jp)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the name Papilio hesperus Westwood, 1843 (Lepidoptera, PAPILIONIDAE) for
a well-known species of butterfly. In 1995 it was proposed to ask the Commission to
suppress Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 (Lepidoptera, NYMPHALIDAE) 1n order to
conserve Papilio hesperus Westwood, 1843 (Lepidoptera, PAPILIONIDAE), but a formal
application was never made. The senior name has not otherwise been used except as
a junior synonym of Papilio daedalus Fabricius, 1775, or in inconclusive discussions,
for 200 years or more. Accepting its seniority would be very disruptive to taxonomic
stability of butterfly names in much of the African rainforest zone. The suppression
of Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 for the purposes of both the Principle of
Homonymy and the Principle of Priority would coincidentally also serve to conserve
the name Harma chalcis C. & R. Felder, 1860, which is in widespread use in much of
Africa in the combination Euryphura chalcis.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 191
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Lepidoptera; NYMPHALIDAE; PAPILIONI-
DAE; Papilio; Hamanumida; Hamanumida daedalus; meleagris; hesperus; phemius;
chalcis; Africa.
Introduction
1. Papilio daedalus Fabricius, 1775 (p. 482) (currently Hamanumida daedalus) has
been widely used since its publication for a very characteristic nymphalid butterfly
that is common in all Afrotropical countries (d’Abrera, 1980, p. 346). This name has
also universally been accepted as a senior synonym of Papilio melantha Fabricius,
1775 (p. 513) (type material of P. melantha in Banks Collection, Natural History
Museum, London). Papilio dedalus Cramer, 1775 (currently Eupalamides cyparissias
(Fabricius, 1777, p. 257); Heterocera, CASTNIIDAE) is a junior homonym of Papilio
daedalus Fabricius, 1775 under Article 58.1 of the Code, and is considered to have
been published 31 December 1775 (see Opinion 516, Opinions and Declarations, 19:
1-43, May 1958). Papilio daedalus Fabricius, 1775 is a senior synonym of Papilio
meleagris Cramer [1775, p. 102]. During the 19th century daedalus and meleagris were
both widely used, always for what we now know to be seasonal forms of the same
species. Drury [1782] gave a good illustration of the latter, thus popularising the
name meleagris.
2. Hubner [1819, p. 18] placed Papilio meleagris in his new genus Hamanumida
together with several other species that were completely unrelated, but he designated
no type species and did not mention P. daedalus or P. hesperus.
3. Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 (p. 47) has also generally been considered a
junior synonym of P. daedalus, or of uncertain status. There is no type material in the
Fabricius Collection (ZMUC, Copenhagen). In his description, Fabricius refers to an
illustration made by William Jones from a specimen in Drury’s collection. Godart
[1824] (p. 327) gave a French translation of the original description and referred to
the illustration in ‘Jones Icones’, placing hesperus Fabricius as a species in the genus
Nymphalis — in which he also placed P. daedalus Fabricius, 1775.
4. Westwood [1846-1852] included P. hesperus Fabricius, 1793 as a possible
member of the Oriental genus Adolias Boisduval, 1836 with a question mark, without
description and without locality. Westwood also makes reference to ‘Jones Icones’,
which he may have used to reach this conclusion. Moore (1859) included it as sp. 50
in his revision of Adolias, referring back to the above works, without any description
or further information. No other African species was included in Moore’s concept of
Adolias (currently the Oriental genus Euthalia Hubner, [1819)).
5. Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 was quoted as a junior synonym of Aterica
daedalus by Butler [1870], though with the following comment: *. . . the description of
P. hesperus is not good, and agrees much better with the female of Adolias phemius
of Doubleday [currently Euthalia phemius (Doubleday, [1848])]’. However, Butler
presumably did not see the ‘Icones’, since neither sex of E. phemius could possibly be
mistaken for the species figured by Jones (see paras 12, 13, below). Had Butler
actually seen the ‘Icones’, he would certainly have considered it a valid species rather
than a potential synonym.
192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
p fyecdiel BS [4d Hesperus
| : 4 i bis Je £ * ( ee f. . pity * ie eh
eS) Aen piigee Lh py Yr
| (de eft tL oe, LEA LES car, FO LH) aHeu. Qed frupe ‘af Btls tier al eo
Fig. 1. Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 [currently Euryphura chalcis (C. & R. Felder, 1860)], figures of
syntype in Jones’ Icones (Oxford University Museum of Natural History), photo by K. Ueda.
6. Kirby’s (1871) well-known world catalogue of butterflies placed P. daedalus
as the only valid species in the genus Hamanumida (including meleagris, melantha
and hesperus Fabricius as junior synonyms). Scudder (1875, p. 183) considered
Kirby’s action to be a valid type species restriction for the genus, but Scudder’s
own deliberate selection of “P. daedalus (meleagris) from among all Hubner’s
putative members of the group should be considered the valid designation of the type
species according to Hemming (1967, p. 207). Thus the type species of the genus
Hamanumida is Papilio meleagris Cramer, [1775]. P. hesperus Fabricius, 1793 has
been treated as a junior synonym of P. daedalus in subsequent literature on African
Lepidoptera.
7. De Nicéville (1886) mentioned P. hesperus Fabricius, 1793 in his list of references
under Euthalia phemius Doubleday, but also referred to the fact that Butler [1870]
placed it as a junior synonym of Aterica daedalus. It was not used as a valid name.
There will have been additional indecisive discussions in the literature on Oriental
butterflies, but we have not seen any from the 20th century.
8. In his influential book, the first to treat the entire known African butterfly fauna,
Aurivillius [1899] used Hamanumida daedalus as the valid name but treated meleagris
as a seasonal form ‘var. (temp)’. The original descriptions are in accord with this view
(daedalus: ‘... ale subtus ochracee, immaculate aut obsolete macule’ [dry season];
meleagris: ‘... ale subtus ochracee, albomaculate’ [wet season]). Drury’s [1782]
illustration of meleagris has the white-spotted wet season underside that is almost
immaculate in the nominate dry season morph. Aurivillius ({1899], 1912, p. 191)
made no reference to P. hesperus Fabricius, presumably considering this now to be an
‘Indian’ matter.
9. Shortly after Scudder’s designation of the type species, the combination
Hamanumida daedalus became almost universally used, with Papilio hesperus
Fabricius, 1793 usually mentioned as a junior synonym. Following Aurivillius [1899],
the name meleagris fell into disuse, except as an infrasubspecific name for the wet
season morph.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 193
Homonymy
10. Despite usually being considered a junior subjective synonym of P. daedalus in
Africa and its rather confused treatment in the Indian literature, Papilio hesperus
Fabricius, 1793 (p. 47) remains an available name and is therefore a senior primary
homonym of Papilio hesperus Westwood, [1843, p. 189]. Papilio hesperus Westwood
is a majestic swallowtail (PAPILIONIDAE) that is widespread in the rainforests between
Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia (d’Abrera, 1980, p. 16). This combination has been
used consistently since the description was published more than 150 years ago,
although sometimes removed to the genus Princeps Hiibner, [1807], which is treated
as, at best, a subgenus by most authors (e.g. Collins & Morris, 1985; Ackery et al.,
1995; Smith & Vane-Wright, 2008).
11. This homonymy was recognised by Ackery et al. (1995) in the authoritative
catalogue ‘Carcasson’s African Butterflies’. The authors stated: ‘The name Papilio
hesperus Westwood has been in widespread use since its establishment. We propose
to make a case to the I.C.Z.N. to here set aside the principle of priority, in order to
maintain stability by conserving P. hesperus Westwood as a valid nominal taxon’.
The plea on P. hesperus Westwood was also followed by later researchers (e.g.
Larsen, 2003, 2005; Zakharov et al., 2004). Such an application has not yet been
made, but is still necessary for nomenclatural stability. If P. hesperus Westwood
cannot be used, its replacement would be Papilio horribilis var. calabaricus Distant,
1879 (p. 649). Although calabaricus was originally described as a variety and has not
been in use as a valid name since 1899, because it was published before 1961 and its
author did not give it infrasubspecific rank (Article 45.6.4), it is available.
Discussion
12. We recently discovered that the specimen illustrated in the original Jones’ Icones
in Oxford (Jones, before summer 1787: see Vane-Wright & Gaonkar, 2006; Vane-
Wright, 2010) to which the description of Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 refers is
very different from his Papilio daedalus (for an account of the otherwise unpublished
Jones’ Icones, see Waterhouse, 1938); this combination cannot be considered a junior
synonym thereof. The specimen is not in the Banks Collection at the Natural History
Museum, London, nor in the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, but not all the paintings
in the ‘Icones’ were based on material that formed part of those collections. One of
the most frequent sources that Jones used was that of another London-based
collector, Dru Drury — whom Jones clearly indicates as the source of his illustration.
The most likely depository for Drury specimens is the Macleay collection in Sydney,
Australia — but only a small proportion of his material survives there (Hancock et al.,
2008), and no original P. hesperus Fabricius material has been located.
13. Jones’s illustration was, as usual, of exceptional accuracy (e.g. Vane-Wright &
Gaonkar, 2006; Vane-Wright, 2010). The specimen of Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793
figured in the ‘Icones’ and referenced in the original description is without doubt a male
of Harma chalcis C. & R. Felder, 1860 from ‘Guinea’. Though this species is actually
compatible with Fabricius’s summary description, no-one ever made this suggestion
before. Butler [1870] would certainly have done so (see para. 3) had he actually seen the
‘Icones’ at the time, since the Felders’ work was well known to him by then. Harma
chalcis is now placed in the genus Euryphura Staudinger, 1891, and is widely distributed
194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
throughout the African rainforest zone. The name chalcis has been consistently used
since it was described in 1860 in various publications and, since 1891, nearly always
as Euryphura chalcis — although Ackery et al. (1995) treated Euryphura as a subgenus
of Euriphene Boisduval, 1847. It has sometimes been confused with Euryphura
plautilla (Hewitson, 1865). Under the provisions of Article 23.9.1 of the Code, the
condition of Article 23.9.1.1 is met in the case of P. hesperus Fabricius, since the name
is a senior synonym of E. chalcis and has not been used as a valid name after 1899.
However, EF. chalcis has not been used in at least 25 works, published by at least 10
authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less
than 10 years (the list is held by the Secretariat), so the condition of Article 23.9.1.2
is not met. Thus we consider that the use of P. hesperus Fabricius (the senior
synonym) would threaten stability or universality, and so wish to maintain use of
E. chalcis (the junior synonym) under the provision of Article 23.9.3.
14. Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 has effectively never been used except as a
synonym of Papilio daedalus or given uncertain status before 1899, as mentioned
above (paras 3, 4, 13). Papilio hesperus Westwood, 1843, on the other hand, is at
present widely used (a list of 53 publications using this combination, the status of
which has never been questioned, is held by the Secretariat). It is also well-established
as the name for a species-group of four or five similar, largely allopatric swallowtails
(the Papilio hesperus-group: e.g. Berger, 1950; Munroe, 1961; Hancock, 1983;
Zakharov et al., 2004). The term was used earlier in a slightly wider sense by
Aurivillius (1899, p. 16), and in ‘Seitz’ (Aurivillius, 1908, p. 16).
15. The suppression of Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793 would serve to avoid
significant confusion concerning the well-known Papilio hesperus Westwood, 1843,
the Papilio hesperus-group, and the subspecific name associated with the species. It
would also dispel any doubt as to the continued validity of Euryphura chalcis (C. &
R. Felder, 1860), or the recurrence of the name hesperus in discussions on Oriental
Euthalia Hubner, [1819] (formerly Adolias). There would be no negative conse-
quences; interpretation of all existing literature would remain unaffected. However,
P. hesperus Fabricius remains a primary homonym. Under the provisions of Article
23.9.1 of the Code, the condition of Article 23.9.1.1 is met for conserving P. hesperus
Westwood, but that of Article 23.9.1.2 is not met, as in E. chalcis.
16. Under the provisions of Articles 23.9.1 and 23.9.2 of the Code, it would be possible
to conserve the homonymous name P. hesperus Westwood by declaring it a nomen
protectum, without requiring a ruling by the Commission. However, the condition of
Article 23.9.1.2 is not met in the case of the synonymous name E. chalcis, so a strict
application of the Code would require replacing this name with its senior synonym,
unless the senior name is suppressed under Article 23.9.3. If the Fabrician name were not
suppressed, then its resurrection, as Euryphura hesperus (Fabricius, 1793), would
necessitate a Commission ruling under Article 23.9.5 to conserve Westwood’s name,
since Article 23.9.1.1 would no longer be satisfied. Therefore, in order to maintain
nomenclatural stability and to reduce potential future confusion, it is proposed that the
name Papilio hesperus Fabricius, 1793, be suppressed under Article 23.9.3 of the Code.
17. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name hesperus Fabricius, 1793, as
published in the binomen Papilio hesperus, for the purposes of both the
Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 ih)
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name hesperus
Westwood, 1843, as published in the binomen Papilio hesperus;
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name hesperus Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen
Papilio hesperus and as suppressed in (1) above.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank those Commissioners who have commented in detail
on this application, leading to a number of improvements and clarifications. The
Oxford University Museum of Natural History and its staff kindly facilitated the
photography for Fig. 1.
References
Ackery, P.R., Smith, C.R., & Vane-Wright, R.I. (Eds.). 1995. Carcasson’s African butterflies: an
annotated catalogue of the Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea of the Afrotropical Region.
xi, 803 pp. CSIRO Australia, Canberra.
Aurivillius, [P.O.JC. 1899. Rhopalocera Aethiopica. Die Tagfalter des Aethiopischen
Faunengebietes. Eine Systematisch-Geographische Studie. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps-
Akademiens Handlingar, 31(5): 1-561.
Aurivillius, [P.O.JC. 1908-1925. 1. The African Rhopalocera. In Seitz, A. (Ed.), Die Gross-
Schmetterlinge der Erde, vol. (2)13, vii, 613 pp., 80 pls. F. Lehmann/A. Kernen, Stuttgart.
Berger, L.A. 1950. Catologues raisonnés de la faune entomologique du Congo Belge
Lépidoptéres-Rhopalocéres 1. — Fam. Papilionidae. Annales du Musée Royal du Congo
Belge. C-Zoologie, (3) 8(1): 1-102.
Boisduval, J.B.A. 1836. Jn [Roret, Suites 4 Buffon] Histoire naturelles des Insectes. Species
général des Lépidopteres, vol. 1: [iv], xii, 690, 6 pp., 24 pls. Librairie Encyclopédique de
Roret, Paris.
Boisduval, J.B.A. 1847. Catalogue des Lépidoptéres recueillis par M. Delegorgue pendant les
années 1838-1844 a Port-Natal, au pays de Amazoulous et dans la contrée de Massilicatzi.
In Delegorgue, A., Voyage dans I’ Afrique australe vol. 2. Pp. 585-602. A. René, Paris.
Butler, A.G. [1870]. Catalogue of diurnal Lepidoptera described by Fabricius in the collection of
the British Museum [vi], 303 pp. British Museum, London.
Collins, N.M. & Morris, M.G. 1985. Threatened swallowtail butterflies of the world. The
IUCN Red Data Book. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Cramer, P. [1775-1776]. De Uitlandsche Kapellen voorkomende in de drie Waereld-Deelen Asia,
Africa en America. Vol. I. [vi], xxx, 16 pp., 155 pp., 96 pls. S.J. Baalde, Amsteldam/B.
Wild, Utrecht.
d’Abrera, B. 1980. Butterflies of the Afrotropical region. xx, 593 pp. Lansdowne Press, Melbourne.
de Nicéville, L. 1886. The butterflies of India, Burmah and Ceylon, vol. 2. vii, 332 pp., 8 pls.
Calcutta Central Press, Calcutta.
Distant, W.L. 1879. On some African species of the lepidopterous genus Papilio. Proceedings
of the Scientific Meetings of the Zoological Society of London, 1879: 646-649.
Drury, D. 1782. I/lustrations of natural history, vol. 3. xxviii, 76, 2 pp., 50 pls. B. White, London.
Fabricius, J.C. 1775 [17 April]. Systema Entomologiae [xxxii], 1-832. Flensburgh & Leipzig,
Library Kortii.
Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta, 3 (1): [vi], 1-488. C.G. Proft,
Copenhagen.
Felder, C. & Felder, R. 1860. Lepidopterologische Fragmente. Wiener Entomologische
Monatschrift, 4. 225-251.
Godart, J.B. 1819-1824. In Latreille, P.A. & Godart, J.B., Encyclopédie méthodique, Histoire
naturelle des insectes, vol. 9. 828 pp. Veuve Agasse, Paris.
Hancock, D.L. 1983. Classification of the Papilionidae (Lepidoptera): a phylogenetic ap-
proach. Smithersia, 2: 148.
196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Hancock, E.G., Broadsmith-Brown, G., Douglas, A.S. & Vane-Wright, R.I. 2008. William
Hunter’s Museum and discovery of the Madagascan pipevine swallowtail butterfly,
Pharmacophagus antenor (Drury, 1773). Antenna, 32(1): 10-17.
Hemming, F. 1967. The generic names of the butterflies and their type-species (Lepidoptera:
Rhopalocera). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology), Supple-
ment, 9: 1-509.
Hiibner, J. [1806-1819]. Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, 1: [vi], 213 pls. J. Hubner,
Augsburg.
Hiibner, J. [1816-1826]. Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetterlinge. 431+72 pp. J. Hubner, Augsburg.
Jones, W. [dates uncertain]. ‘Icones’ — a roll of 35 mm slides (ca 1979), of which few exist, depicting
ca 1500 paintings of butterflies by Jones ca 1780-1810 [The originals were donated to Oxford
University around 1925-1933 by a descendant of William Jones]. Oxford University Museum
of Natural History. [The specific images referred to here were evidently published prior to
summer 1787: see Vane-Wright & Gaonkar, 2006, p. 297, and Vane-Wright, 2010.]
Kirby, W.F. 1871.4 synonymic catalogue of the diurnal Lepidoptera. viii, 690 pp. Van Voorst,
London.
Larsen, T.B. 2003. The Emperor Swallowtails (Papilio hesperus Westwood, 1843 and P.
horribilis Butler, 1874) in West Africa (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Entomologists’ Record
and Journal of Variation, 115: 189-192.
Larsen, T.B. 2005. Butterflies of West Africa. 2 vols., 596 pp, 125 pls. Apollo Books, Stenstrup,
Denmark.
Moore, F. 1859. A Monograph of the genus Adolias, a genus of diurnal Lepidoptera belonging
to the family Nymphalidae. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, New
series, 5: 62-87.
Munroe, E. [1961]. The classification of the Papilionidae (Lepidoptera). Canadian Entomolo-
gist, Supplements, 17: 1-51.
Scudder, S.H. 1875. Historical sketch of the generic names proposed for butterflies — a
contribution to systematic nomenclature. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences (Boston), 10: 91-293.
Smith, C.R. & Vane-Wright, R.I. 2008. Classification, nomenclature and identification of lime
swallowtail butterflies: a post-cladistic analysis (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Systematics
and Biodiversity, 6(2): 175-203.
Staudinger, O. 1891. Neue exotische Lepidopteren. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, Iris,
4: 61-157.
Vane-Wright, R.I. 2010. William Jones of Chelsea (1745-1818), and the need for a digital,
online ‘Icones’. Antenna, 34 (1): 16-21.
Vane-Wright, R.I. & Gaonkar, H. 2006. The Arhopala butterflies described by Fabricius: A.
centaurus is from Java, A. democritus from Phuket (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Entomo-
logical Science, 9: 295-311.
Waterhouse, D.F. 1938. Notes on Jones’ Icones (Lepidoptera). With footnotes and appendix by
Sir Edward Poulton. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London (A), 13:
9-17.
Westwood, J.O. [1842-1843]. Arcana Entomologica; or illustrations of new, rare, and interesting
species, vol. 1. iv, 192 pp. W. Smith, London.
Westwood, J.O. [1846-1852]. In Doubleday, E. & Westwood, J.O. The genera of diurnal
Lepidoptera, vol. 2. Pp. 251-534, pls. 31-80, Suppl. pl. Longman, Brown, Green &
Longmans, London.
Zakharov, E.V., Caterino, M.S. & Sperling, F.A.H. 2004. Molecular phylogeny, historical
biogeography, and divergence time estimates for swallowtail butterflies of the genus
Papilio (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Systematic Biology, 53: 193-215.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 66: 204.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 19:7
Case 3527
Anguis jamaicensis Shaw, 1802 (currently Typhlops jamaicensis;
Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation of the specific name
by ruling that it is not to be treated as a replacement name for
A. lumbricalis Linnaeus, 1758 (currently 7. lumbricalis) and the
designation of neotypes for both taxa
Michel Dominguez
Centro Iberoamericano de la Biodiversidad (CIBIO), Universidad de
Alicante, Edificio de Ciencias III, Campus San Vicente del Raspeig, 03080,
Alicante, Spain (e-mail: micheldd@hotmail.es)
Raul E. Diaz, Jr.
University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS 66160, U.S.A.
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 78.1 of the Code, is to
conserve the usage of the specific names Anguis lumbricalis Linnaeus, 1758 and
Anguis jamaicensis Shaw, 1802 for two species of blind snake from the Caribbean. As
published both taxa were composite and the name A. jamaicensis was a replacement
for A. lumbricalis. The name Typhlops lumbricalis has consistently been used for a
species from Cuba, Isla de Juventud and Bahamas, and T. jamaicensis is used for a
species from Jamaica. A neotype is designated for 7. lumbricalis and it is proposed
that a neotype be designated for T. jamaicensis in accord with accustomed usage.
Typhlops lumbricalis is the type species of Typhlops Oppel, 1811, a genus with a
distribution in Europe, Africa, Asia, Central and South America and some 140
species.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Serpentes; TYPHLOPIDAE; Typhlops
lumbricalis; Typhlops jamaicensis; blind snakes; West Indies; Bahamas; Cuba;
Jamaica.
1. Linnaeus (1758, p. 228) briefly described the blind snake Anguis lumbricalis:
[middorsal scale count] ‘230-7, Color ex albido flavescens’ and stated that it occurred
in America. Linnaeus did not mention this species in either of his accounts of
specimens in the Swedish King Adolf Fredrik’s cabinet (1754 and 1764) and there are
no specimens either in the King’s collection in the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet in
Stockholm or the Evolutionsmuseet, University of Uppsala. Furthermore, there are
no specimens of this species among Linnaeus’s own material in Uppsala or in the
Linnean Society’s collection in London.
2. Linnaeus (1758) cited three earlier references: Seba (1734, p. 137, pl. 86, fig. 2),
Browne (1756, p. 460, pl. 44, fig. 1), and Gronovius (1756, p. 52, no. 3). Under Article
72.4.1 of the Code, these references form an integral part of Linnaeus’s description of
Anguis lumbricalis and all the material on which the descriptions and/or illustrations
198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
of the other authors were based is syntypic, whether or not it was examined by
Linnaeus and whether or not it still exists. Linnaeus’s own description, those of the
earlier authors cited by him and their specimens are all of equal status and together
they constitute the basis on which the name is made available.
3. Seba (1734, p. 137, no. 2, pl. 86, fig. 2) described his taxon as ‘cinereo luteus’ and
provided an illustration; he did not, however, give scale counts or length measure-
ments. His text was published in both Latin and Dutch and Latin and French. The
Latin and Dutch versions record the species as ‘Caecilia, ex Mauritania’ and “Cecilia,
a blinde slang van Mauretanié’, respectively. In the French version, however, the
species was recorded as ‘Aveugle de la Nigritié’. The ‘Nigritié’ is a region that
currently includes several West and Central African countries. In accordance with the
distribution given by Seba and his illustration, his species could be a member of either
the TYPHLOPIDAE or the LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE. A correct identification is very difficult
because the scalation pattern is not clear and there are no known specimens
attributable to Seba.
4. Browne (1756, p. 460, pl. 44, fig. 1) described a blind snake ‘Amphisbaena
subargentea’ (silver snake) from Jamaica. He noted “This reptile seldom exceeds
sixteen inches in length, and grows gradually thicker from the snout to the end of the
tail; but the anus is placed so near this part both in this and some others of the same
kind, that it has been frequently mistaken for the mouth, which has given rise to the
name Amphisbaena, by which all the species are now commonly known’. In Browne’s
illustration, the head scalation pattern is more detailed and his species is clearly that
later called Anguis jamaicensis by Shaw (1802). Browne’s name Amphisbaena
subargentea became available with the publication of the second edition of his work
in 1789; the text is the same as in the first edition but in the index and figures he used
binominal nomenclature. Browne’s (1789) work was suppressed in Opinion 89
(December 1925) and placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in
Zoological Nomenclature in Direction 32 (May 1956). Non-adoption of Browne’s
names in the 19th century and suppression of his work at an early date are no doubt
the reason why his names, including subargentea, have not been used by later authors.
5. Gronovius (1756, p. 52, no. 3) described a specimen or specimens in his own
collection. He gave the scale count (230 ventral scales and seven caudal scales),
coloration (‘albido flavescens’) and lengths of the animals. The scale count and
coloration were those later published by Linnaeus (1758). Unfortunately Gronovius
did not illustrate any of the specimens that he had nor did he give their geographical
provenance. Gronovius included references to Seba (1734, p. 137, pl. 86, fig. 2) and
Browne (1756, p. 460, pl. 44, fig. 1). The Fish Section of the Natural History
Museum, London, contains several specimens identified as Linnaean types which
were included among Gronovius’s dried fish material bought along with his
manuscript at auction in London in 1853 (Gtinther, 1859-1870; Wheeler, 1958).
Unfortunately there was no reptile material in that collection (Colin McCarthy,
NHM, London, pers. comm., April 2009). McDiarmid, Campbell & Touré (1999, p.
108) incorrectly stated Gronovius’s specimen to be the ‘holotype’ of Anguis lumbri-
calis.
6. Linnaeus’s (1758) name Anguis lumbricalis has been used consistently for a
species of blind snake found in Cuba, Isla de Juventud, and Bahamas but the taxon
was composite when published. Thomas (1989) restricted the ‘type locality’ to New
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 199
Providence Island in the Bahamas. In the absence of evidence that any of Seba’s
(1734), Browne’s (1756), or Gronovius’s (1756) material came from there, and the
absence of a neotype designated from there, this action was invalid. There is no
extant syntype and we therefore designate a neotype. This is specimen KU 273756 (its
sex was not identified) collected from 4 miles N and 0.5 miles E of Rock Sound
(76° 11°02”N, 24°58°02”W, 20 m elevation, datum WGS 84), Eleuthera Island,
Bahama Islands, on 7 October 1965 by Richard Thomas and housed at the
University of Kansas Natural History Museum & Biodiversity Research Center,
Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A. Of small size, measuring 119 mm snout-vent length (SVL),
4 mm tail length (TL), 4.4 mm midbody diameter (MBD). No distinct neck/cervical
region when viewed externally. Head is rounded in dorsal view, not dorsoventrally
depressed, almost as long as broad (head width maximum/head length (HWM/HL)
is 1.02); rounded snout in dorsal and lateral views; rostral in dorsal view like a narrow
oval, slightly broader than long, total length of the dorsal rostral/widest part of the
dorsal rostral (RWD/RLD) is 0.57, with slightly pointed apex, non-parallel sides and
almost reaching interocular level, postnasal pattern weakly divergent. Single, sub-
triangular preocular contacting the third supralabial only, two postoculars, two
parietals and four supralabials with T-III imbrications pattern (Figs. 1A, 1B); 20
scale rows anteriorly, reducing to 18 scale rows posteriorly at around midbody. Low
middorsal scale counts (256), 13 ventrocaudals. Dorsum and venter colorations are
dark brown and lighter brown (cream) in alcohol, respectively. Snout and head are
pigmented.
7. Shaw (1802, p. 588, pl. 133) described and illustrated the blind snake Anguis
jamaicensis from Jamaica as a ‘silvery-brownish slow-worm, with the body gradually
thickening, and the tail abruptly subacuminate’ (also described in Latin). He noted,
‘The length of this species, according to Brown [sic], in his History of Jamaica,
seldom exceeds sixteen inches, and the diameter of the animal gradually increases
from the snout to the tail, which is extremely short, and terminates in a slightly
pointed extremity: it is found about the roots of decayed trees, near ants’ nests, etc.
and though popularly considered as poisonous, is entirely innocuous; its colour is a
uniform pale brown, with a kind of silvery gloss on the scales, which are extremely
smooth, resembling in some degree those of the scink [sic]’. Shaw cited three
references: Amphisbaena subargentea. Silver snake. Brown[e], Jam[aica], p. 460, pl.
44, fig. 1. Serpens Caecilia ex Mauritania Seba, 1, pl. 87, fig. 2 [recte pl. 86, fig. 2].
Anguis lumbricalis? Lin{naeus] Syst[ema] Nat[urae], p. 391. (This is the page reference
in Edition 12, 1766). Shaw’s text is very similar to Browne’s description and, although
the head scales are more visible in Shaw’s illustration than in Seba’s, the two figures
are very similar.
8. In the second edition of his work (para. 4 above), Browne (1789) used several
question marks when he employed binominal nomenclature in the index and on
figures, and Shaw (1802) gave new names to those of Browne’s names with question
marks. Browne (1789) gave the name “Anguis lumbricalis? ’ to pl. 44, fig. 1, and listed
‘Anguis lumbricoides?? (sic) in Index 4, p. xlvi, suggesting that his own species
subargentea could possibly be synonymous with A. /umbricalis Linnaeus. In copying
Browne’s description of the blind snake, Shaw (1802) also incorporated Browne’s
question mark. Shaw cited Linnaeus (1766) and most of Linnaeus’s citations in his
work, although he was often inconsistent and inaccurate in his use of references and
200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
D
Fig. 1. Dorsal and lateral views of the head scutellation (scale bar = 2 mm) in: A, B. Typhlops lumbricalis
(KU 273756, neotype); C, D. Typhlops jamaicensis (KU 269908, specimen proposed as neotype).
usually omitted citations of Gronovius that had been included by Linnaeus (Shaw
may not have had easy access to a copy of Gronovius’s work). Shaw’s (1802) new
nominal species was based on two of the references cited by Linnaeus (viz. Seba,
1734; Browne, 1756) and the name jamaicensis could be considered a replacement
name for /umbricalis. The name jamaicensis is the only one of the 17 replacement
names proposed by Shaw (see Smith & David, 1999) still in current use.
9. The herpetological community (for example, Gundlach, 1880; Boulenger, 1893;
Barbour, 1901; 1914; Barbour & Ramsden, 1919) accepted the nomenclatural status
of A. jamaicensis as discussed by Duméril & Bibron (1844, pp. 287-290). They later
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 201
summarised the name /umbricalis and included two synonyms for it, subargentea and
jamaicensis. They also noted that Shaw’s description and illustration were copies of
Browne’s description and Seba’s illustration, respectively. Nevertheless, Cochran
(1924) erroneously resurrected jamaicensis. She found that populations of the blind
snake in Jamaica and Puerto Rico associated with the name T. /umbricalis differ in
scutellation, pattern, and other characters from T. /umbricalis populations of the
Bahamas, Cuba, and Hispaniola, meriting distinct species recognition. Cochran
stated that Shaw’s description was based on the accounts of Browne and Seba, since
Shaw himself questioned the reference to A. lumbricalis. She added that Linnaeus’s
name was based on Gronovius’s description and, since Gronovius’s material had a
low middorsal scale count, it was justifiable to apply the name /umbricalis only to
blind snakes with 20 scale rows anteriorly and low middorsal scale row counts, which
encompasses specimens from the Bahamas, Cuba and Hispaniola; thus Typhlops
populations found in Puerto Rico and Jamaica must be called T. jamaicensis.
However, in the absence of a lectotype or neotype designated for /umbricalis from the
Bahamas, Cuba or Hispaniola, this statement was incorrect.
10. The names have been used consistently for two distinct species, Typhlops
lumbricalis from Cuba, Isla de Juventud, and the Bahamas with 237-329 middorsal
scales, and T: jamaicensis from Jamaica with 379-448 middorsal scales (see, for
example, Thomas, 1976; 1989; Dixon & Hendricks, 1979; Garrido & Jaume, 1984;
Schwartz & Henderson, 1988; 1991; Wallach, 1998; Powell et al., 1996; Crombie,
1999; Estrada & Ruibal, 1999; McDiarmid, Campbell & Touré, 1999; Dominguez
& Moreno, 2003). Recently T. /umbricalis has been redescribed by Dominguez
& Diaz (2011) as having 256-271 middorsal scales and being restricted to the
Bahamas. A ruling is needed to separate the two names so that they can continue to
be used for these two species, maintaining stability in the nomenclature. Currently
there is no specimen of T. jamaicensis suitable for lectotype designation and we
propose that a neotype be designated. This is specimen KU 269908 collected from
St. James, 1 mile South of Reading (18°23’32”N, 77°51’35”W, 493 m elevation,
datum WGS 84), Jamaica, on 25 July 1961 by Albert Schwartz (AS 15296). It is
an adult male, medium sized, 262 mm SVL, 8 mm TL, 8.0 mm MBD. Lacks distinct
cervical region. Head is slightly ogival in dorsal view, not dorsoventrally depressed,
slightly broader than long, HWM/HL is 1.08; rounded in lateral view; broad rostral
in dorsal view, almost broad as long, 0.81 RWD/RLD, curved-sided, slightly umbo,
not flared on anterior apex, nearly parallel-sided midrostrally, with rounded
posterior apex and not reaching interocular level, postnasal pattern strongly diver-
gent; single subtriangular preocular contacting with third supralabial only, two
postoculars, two parietals and four supralabials with T-III imbrication pattern (Figs.
1C, 1D); 22 scale rows anteriorly, without reduction posteriorly, high middorsal scale
counts (398), 10 ventrocaudals. Dorsum and venter colorations are dark brown and
lighter brown (cream) in alcohol, respectively. Snout and head are pigmented.
11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that the specific name jamaicensis Shaw, 1802,
as published in the binomen Anguis jamaicensis, is to be treated as the specific
name of a newly proposed nominal species and not as a replacement name for
Anguis lumbricalis Linnaeus, 1758;
202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
(2) to designate specimen KU 269908 at the University of Kansas Natural History
Museum & Biodiversity Research Center, Lawrence, KS, U.S.A., as the
neotype of Anguis jamaicensis Shaw, 1802;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name jamaicensis
Shaw, 1802, as published in the binomen Anguis jamaicensis and as defined by
the neotype designated in (2) above.
Acknowledgements
We thank Sven Kullander (Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm), Colin McCarthy
(The Natural History Museum, London) and Van Wallach (Museum of Comparative
Zoology, Harvard University) for their assistance in trying to trace type material, Rafe
Brown and Linda Trueb (University of Kansas Natural History Museum & Biodiversity
Research Center) for access to Typhlops in the collection. First author is deeply grateful
to Anthea Gentry (The Natural History Museum, London) for help in putting together
this application. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewer for helpful remarks.
References
Barbour, T. 1901. Batrachia and Reptilia from the Bahamas. Bulletin of the Museum of
Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 46(3): 55-61.
Barbour, T. 1914. A contribution to the zoogeography of the West Indies, with special
reference to amphibians and reptiles. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at
Harvard College, 44(2): 209-359, 1 plate.
Barbour, T. & Ramsden, C.T. 1919. The herpetology of Cuba. Memoirs of the Museum of
Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 47(2): 71-213.
Boulenger, G.A. 1893. Catalogue of the snakes in the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 1.
xxvill, 448 pp. Taylor & Francis, London.
Browne, P. 1756. The civil and natural history of Jamaica. viii, 503 pp., 49 pls. Patrick Browne,
London.
Browne, P. 1789. The civil and natural history of Jamaica, Ed. 2. viii, 503, [46] pp., 49 pls.
Patrick Browne, London.
Cochran, D.M. 1924. Typhlops lumbricalis and related forms. Journal of the Washington
Academy of Sciences, 14(8): 174-177.
Crombie, R.I. 1999. Jamaica. Pp. 63-92 in Crother, B.I. (Ed.), Caribbean amphibians and
reptiles. Academic Press, London.
Dixon, J.R., & Hendricks, F.S. 1979. The wormsnakes (family Typhlopidae) of the neotropics,
exclusive of the Antilles. Zoologische Verhandelingen, 173: 1-39.
Dominguez, M. & Diaz, R.E. 2011. Taxonomy of the blind snakes associated with Typhlops
lumbricalis (Linnaeus, 1758) (Scolecophidia: Typhlopidae) from the Bahama Islands and
Cuba. Herpetologica, 67(2): 194-211.
Dominguez, M. & Moreno, L.V. 2003. Serpientes del suelo. Pp. 98-109, in Rodriguez Schettino,
L. (Ed.), Anfibios y reptiles de Cuba. UPC Print, Vaasa.
Dumeril, A.M.C. & Bibron, G. 1844. Erpétologie générale ou histoire naturelle complete des
Reptiles. Comprenant lhistoire générale des Ophidiens, la description des genres et des
espéces de serpent non venimeux . . ., vol. 6. xii, 610 pp., 14 pls. Librairie Encyclopédique
de Roret, Paris.
Estrada, A.R. & Ruibal, R. 1999. A review of Cuban herpetology. Pp. 31-62 in Crother, B.I.
(Ed.), Caribbean amphibians and reptiles. Academic Press, London.
Garrido, O.H. & Jaume, M.L. 1984. Catalogo descriptivo de los anfibios y reptiles de Cuba.
Dofiana, Acta Vertebrata, 11(2): 5-128.
Gronovius, L.T. 1756. Museum ichthyologicum, sistens piscium indigenorum and quorundam
exoticorum, qui in Museo Laurentii Theodori Gronovii adservantur, descriptiones ordine
systematico ..., vol. 2. x, 88 pp., 7 pls. Theodor Haak, Leiden.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 203
Gundlach, J. C. 1880. Contribucion a la erpetologia cubana, 99 pp. Imprenta de G. Montiel y
C*, La Habana.
Ginther, A. 1859-1870. Catalogue of fishes in the British Museum, vol. 1-8. London.
Linnaeus, C. 1754. Hans Maj-:ts Adolf Frideriks var allernddigste konungs naturalie samling
innehdallande séillsynte och fradmmande djur, som bevaras pd kongl. lust-slottet Ulriksdahl. . .
Xxx, 96 pp, [7] pp, 33 pls. Salvii, Holmiae.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 338 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Linnaeus, C. 1764. Museum S:e@ R:e M-tis Adolphi Friderici Regis Svecorum, Gothorum,
Vandalorumque ..., vol. 2. 110 pp, [1] pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Linnaeus, C. 1766. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1. 532 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
McDiarmid, R.W., Campbell, J.A. & Touré, T.A. 1999. Snake species of the world: A taxonomic
and geographic reference, vol. 1. xi, 511 pp. Herpetologists’ League, Washington, D. C.
Oppel, M. 1811. Die ordnungen, familien und gattungen der reptilien, als prodrom einer
naturgeschichte derselben. xii, 87 pp. Lindauer, Munich.
Powell, R., Henderson, R.W., Adler, K., & Dundee, H.A. 1996. An annotated checklist of West
Indian amphibians and reptiles. Pp. 51-93, 8 pls. in Powell, R., & Henderson, R.W. (Eds.),
Contributions to West Indian herpetology. A tribute to Albert Schwartz. Society for the
Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Ithaca.
Schwartz, A., & Henderson, R.W. 1988. West Indian amphibians and reptiles: A checklist.
Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions in Biology and Geology, 74: 1-264.
Schwartz, A., & Henderson, R.W. 1991. Amphibians and reptiles of the West Indies. Descrip-
tions, distributions, and natural history. xvi, 720 pp. University of Florida Press,
Gainesville.
Seba, A. 1734. Locupletissimi rerum nturalium Thesauri... , vol. 1. 178 pp., 121 pls.
Wetstenium, Gul Smith & Janssonio-Waesbergios, Amsterdam.
Shaw, G. 1802. General zoology, or systematic natural history, vol. 3 (Amphibia), part 2. vii, 302
pp. Kearsley, London.
Smith, H.M., & David, P. 1999. George Shaw and the herpetology volume in his series, general
zoology. Pp. 5—96 in Adler, K. (Ed.), George Shaw’s general zoology or systematic natural
history. Volume III — Amphibians and reptiles. Society for the Study of Amphibians and
Reptiles, Ithaca.
Thomas, R. 1976. Systematics of the Antillean blind snakes of the genus Typhlops (Serpentes:
Typhlopidae). Ph. D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Louisiana.
Thomas, R. 1989. The relationships of Antillean Typhlops (Serpentes: Typhlopidae) and the
description of three new Hispaniolan species. Pp. 409-432 in Woods, C.A. (Ed.),
Biogeography of the West Indies: Past, present and future. Sandhill Crane Press,
Gainesville.
Wallach, V. 1998. The visceral anatomy of blindsnakes and wormsnakes and its systematic
implications (Serpentes: Anomalepididae, Typhlopidae, Leptotyphlopidae). Ph.D. Disser-
tation, Northeastern University of Boston, Massachusetts.
Wheeler, A.C. 1958. The Gronovius fish collection: A catalogue and historical account.
Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Historical Series, 1(5): 185-249.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 197.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Comment on the proposed conservation of Haliplanella Hand, 1956 (Anthozoa,
Actinaria) by suppression of Haliplanella Treadwell, 1943 (Polychaeta)
(Case 3493; see BZN 66: 312-316; 67: 166-167)
Daphne Gail Fautin
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and Natural History Museum and
Biodiversity Institute, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, U.S.A.
(e-mail: fautin@ku.edu)
Marymegan Daly
Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, The Ohio State
University, 1315 Kinnear Road, Columbus, OH 43212, U.S.A.
(e-mail: daly.66@osu.edu)
We respond to den Hartog & Ates (BZN 67: 166-167) who commented on our appeal
(BZN 66: 312-316) to resolve a homonymy by suppressing the name Haliplanella
Treadwell, 1943 (for a polychaete annelid) in favour of the name Haliplanella Hand,
1956 (for an actiniarian — a sea anemone). Most of the comments by den Hartog &
Ates (BZN 67: 166-167) relate to taxonomy, not nomenclature. We reiterate our
conviction that both taxonomy and nomenclature would best be served by the action
we request.
We disagree with the assertion that “The introduction by Hand (1956) of the genus
Haliplanella and of the family HALIPLANELLIDAE was exclusively based on the assumed
presence of a combination of three types of nematocysts in the acontia’ (den Hartog
& Ates, BZN 67: 166). Hand (1956), having observed three types of nematocysts from
the acontia, illustrated them — he did not merely assume they were present. In
addition, he included in the diagnosis of Diadumene the ability to develop catch
tentacles (now commonly termed ‘fishing tentacles’), omitting mention of catch
tentacles in the diagnosis of Haliplanella. Hand (1956) thereby implied that individ-
uals belonging to the genus Haliplanella do not form catch tentacles, a distinction he
explicitly stated (personal communication to DGF) as part of his conceptualising the
genera (although we now know that that feature does not, in fact, differentiate them).
The matter raised by den Hartog & Ates (BZN 67: 166) concerning the existence (or
not) of a well-marked fosse and parapet was not considered by Hand (1956) and does
not bear on this matter.
As is acknowledged by den Hartog & Ates (BZN 67: 166), assignment of the type
species of Haliplanella, Sagartia luciae Verrill, 1898, to the genus Diadumene is not
original to them (in a manuscript cited as in press). Indeed, we stated in our appeal
(66: 313) that the animal that ‘is the most widespread species of anemone in the
world’ has been ‘variously known as Haliplanella luciae, H. lineata, Diadumene luciae
or D. lineata.’ An extensive list of the names used for this species, which is available
online from Fautin (2009), includes several uses of the name Haliplanella during the
past 2-3 years. This belies the assertion by den Hartog & Ates (BZN 67: 166) that
‘The recent proposal to conserve the name Haliplanella by Fautin et al. [BZN 66:
312-316] will serve no purpose.’ In fact, people continue to use the name, so resolving
the homonymy would benefit the community.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 205
As we pointed out (Fautin et al. BZN 66: 314), because the name Haliplanella
Treadwell, 1943 is no longer used for the annelid, suppressing it will not cause
hardship to any biologist. In addition to resolving a homonymy that exists
irrespective of taxonomic considerations, placing on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology the name Haliplanella Hand, 1956 will be a positive step; it will not
put the name Tricnidactis errans de Oliveira Pires, 1987 in a nomenclaturally
ambiguous situation pending taxonomic resolution of its affinities. That sea anemone
was placed by its describer in the family HALIPLANELLIDAE. Although den Hartog &
Ates, (BZN 67: 167) ‘think 7. errans belongs to another family,’ they ‘have not been
able to study this species.’ In discussing it, they raise taxonomic issues not directly
germane to the nomenclatural basis of our appeal, including the philosophical
position that ‘Species descriptions should not be based on a single isolated character’
(BZN 67: 167).
Additional reference
Fautin, D.G. 2009. Hexacorallians of the World. http://geoportal.kgs.ku.edu/hexacoral/
anemone2/index.cfm (Accessed 22 July 2011)
Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Murex tubercularis Montagu,
1803 (currently Cerithiopsis tubercularis; Mollusca, Gastropoda, CERITHIOPSIDAE) by
designation of a neotype
(Case 3532; BZN 68: 41-46)
Riccardo Giannuzzi Savelli
Via Mater Dolorosa, 54, 90146 Palermo, Italy (e-mail: malakos@tin.it)
Francesco Pusateri
Via Castellana, 64, 90135 Palermo, Italy (e-mail: francesco@pusateri.it)
We strongly support the application of Cecalupo and Robba and we fully agree with
their well presented considerations.
Comment on the proposed conservation of Termes serratus Froggatt, 1898 and
Termes serrula Desneux, 1904 (Insecta, Isoptera, TERMITINAE)
(Case 3385: see BZN 64: 83-86, 185-187; 65: 47-49, 132-136; 66: 342-348)
Yoko Takematsu
Faculty of Agriculture, Yamaguchi University, 1677-1 Yoshida,
Yamaguchi 753-8515, Japan (e-mail: takematu@yamaguchi-u.ac.jp)
I’ve read Jones’s proposal and all the subsequent comments. I realise the decision of
Roisin & Pasteels (2000) was strictly correct. However as a taxonomic researcher of
termites in Southeast Asia, I wish to conserve the scientific name Microcerotermes
serratus (Froggatt) as an Australian species and Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux)
206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
as a Southeast Asian species. From my fieldwork I know that M. serrula (Desneux)
is common and widespread across Sundaland. Also, the soldiers have very distinctive
characters and are easily identified using the standard texts (Thapa, 1981 and Tho,
1992). As a consequence, I have seen many series of this species labeled as M. serrula
in termite collections in museums, government forestry departments and universities
in Malaysia, and the same is probably true of Indonesian institutions in Kalimantan,
Sumatra and Java. It is clear that many people including non-termitologist re-
searchers and government officers have used the name M. serrula (Desneux) for the
Southeast Asian species. Evans (BZN 66: 343) was correct when he mentioned that
this name had been used not only in scientific publications but also in multiple
government reports about forestry and biodiversity. If the name is not conserved,
then to avoid confusion a large number of specimens deposited in various institutions
would have to be re-labeled as M. serratus, or people who access these specimens
would have to be aware of the name change. I therefore support the views of Jones
(BZN 64: 83-86) and Evans (BZN 66: 342-346).
Comments on the proposed establishment of availability of Balintus d’Abrera, 2001,
Gulliveria d’Abrera & Balint, 2001, Salazaria d’Abrera & Balint, 2001, Megathecla
Robbins, 2002 and Gullicaena Balint, 2002 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, LYCAENIDAE)
(Case 3458; see BZN 65: 188-193, 66: 271-272, 66: 349-351)
(1) Zsolt Balint
Hungarian Natural History Museum, Baross utca 13, Budapest VIII, H-1088,
Hungary (e-mail: balint@nhmus.hu)
Bernard d’Abrera
137 Ridge Road, Mount Dandenong, Victoria, 3767, Australia
(e-mail: bfly@clara.co.uk)
1. We are convinced that our original descriptions of taxa described in d’Abrera
(2001) have been misinterpreted by the applicants in Case 3458. All the eight generic
names we proposed, but which were questioned by the applicants, have been
correctly established in a proper and scientific manner, and thus they have incontro-
vertibly become available for zoological nomenclature. Our wording closely adheres
to the Articles of the Code.
2. The descriptions of all the genera proposed by us in d’Abrera (2001) appeared
under appropriate headings, each having the newly proposed generic names in bold
capital letters with bold typeface and indicated as ‘gen. nov.’. The first entry after
each heading clearly established the particular “Type Species’ for the proposed genus,
stating (as required by the Code) the name of the selected taxon in its original
combination. The next paragraph in logical sequence listed those morphological
characters that we have used to diagnose the proposed genus through its selected type
species.
3. Contrary to the claim of the applicants, this action is not ambiguous. In
providing a description of the characters existing on the type species as the standard
representative of the proposed genus, we are strictly following the requirements of
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 207
the Code. We have already pre-indicated in the heading in bold capital letters the
putative taxon to be diagnosed. Thus it is a clear statement that the subject is the
genus novum and not the type species.
4. The final entry in the text, with the unambiguous subheading “Congeners’
further places all the taxa we considered to be encompassed by the new genus in their
new combinations with the bold typeface indicating ‘comb. nov.’, which means that
this is a new combination of specific and generic epithets, the species being well
established, but the genus now being established as a nomenclatural novelty in
combination with it.
5. Although we think it is unnecessary to have to explain our precise wording, we
now do this to balance the inaccurate explanations of the applicants who have
brought Case 3458 for their own purposes. We use the most discussed genus
Annamaria as an example.
6. Article 13.1.1 states that a name is available when it is accompanied by a
description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to
differentiate the taxon. The heading of our nomenclatural (proposing a new name)
and taxonomic (to describe and to define a new taxon) action clearly states the sole
subject of the paragraph: that is “GENus ANNAMARIA d’Abrera & Balint gen. nov.’
the name and the taxon, which is to be established and differentiated in the
subsequent entry. It is accompanied by a description stating in words the use of
certain characters of the type species, which is the objective standard of the genus.
Therefore there is (a) a new genus-group name proposed, (b) a description which
states in words that these are characters of the type species (the objective standard of
the genus), which define the taxon (the new genus) and (c) help to differentiate the
taxon from the previously described ones.
7. The applicants have artificially constructed a situation in which the proposed
name Annamaria is a nomen nudum, because (they imply) there is no description or
definition of the name itself, thereby rendering it unavailable for any nomenclatural
action. If the sole subject of our taxonomic and nomenclatural action was to be
simply the type species in vacuo, then the heading “GENUS ANNAMARIA d’Abrera &
Balint gen. nov.’ would be nonsense. Hence, to render the name unavailable the
applicants coined the phrase ‘implied grammatical subject’ for our sentences, which
they chose to interpret accordingly. This distorted an otherwise straightforward
nomenclatural and taxonomic action and obscured what we originally presented,
which was a correct, comprehensive but economic taxonomic description of the genus
Annamaria gen. nov.
8. By using such a distortion it becomes only too easy to question not only the
availablity of the names we proposed, but many previously established names by
other authors. For instance, the genera Famegana Eliot, 1973, Rysops Eliot, 1973,
Titea Eliot, 1973, and Zintha Eliot, 1973, taken from one of the most fundamental
works ever published on LYCAENIDAE classification (Eliot, 1973), would also be
rendered unavailable as well. The descriptions of the mentioned names established by
Eliot were worded in an almost identical manner to the questioned generic names
published in d’Abrera (2001); but interestingly none of these names have been
considered to be unavailable by the applicants (Lamas, 2008a).
9. We maintain that our ‘interpretation’ is sound and in logical union with the
heading, the meaning and the intention of the text. It is only ambiguous in the eyes
208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
of the composers of the case; there are no semantic grounds to justify their ‘implied
grammatical subject’. The meaning of d’Abrera & Balint is given expressly in the
heading: ‘In NEOTROPICAL VII:1107 [genus ANNAMARIA d’Abrera & Balint
gen. nov. was] treated as Evenus draudti [with congeners]. Likewise by other workers.
However [GENus ANNAMARIA @Abrera & Balint gen. nov.] is distinguished from
Evenus by shorter cell of f.w. (1/3rd of costal length), and extension of Vein 1 of
h.w. into a lobed tail at tornus. [c¢ENus ANNAMARIA d’Abrera & Balint gen. nov.
has a] compound androconial patch on male f.w. consisting of single circle within
cell & quadrifurcate patch immediately outside discocellulars. Further, [GENus
ANNAMARIA @Abrera & Balint gen. nov. has] androconial patches on post discal
& submarginal tornal areas of f.w. respectively.’
10. In the Code there is nothing to indicate that the characters of the selected type
species could be regarded as anything but characteristic of the genus which it was
deliberately chosen to represent. Nor does the Code indicate that describing other
characters only present in the congeners would somehow be necessary to make the
proposed name available from a nomenclatural point of view. Moreover, we make an
historical note that our concept of Annamaria (in d’Abrera, 2001; Balint, 2005) was
still partly divergent from that of Robbins’ Lamasina (Robbins, 2004b), but later the
applicants came to similar conclusions (Robbins & Lamas, 2008). This objectively
demonstrates that the original definition of the genus Annamaria was sound in spite
of the criticism of the applicants.
11. Therefore we maintain that the establishment of all of our new genera could not
have been composed in a more straightforward way and that we did this in
accordance with the Code. Interested readers can check all of our claims in the pages
of the Concise Atlas of the Butterflies of the World (d’ Abrera, 2001; there is a generic
index), or consult the Fig. 3. of Balint (2005), which is a facsimile of the original
description of the genus Annamaria d’Abrera & Balint, 2001 and compare our style
and wording with those of Eliot (1973) and judge for themselves whether there are
objective grounds or genuine need by the applicants for bringing such a case in the
first place.
12. Expressing the need to correct some nomenclature for a yet-to-be-published
manuscript, one of the applicants (Robbins, 2002) preferred the forgotten, homony-
mous and therefore unavailable name Eucharia Boisduval, 1870, which was briefly
and inadequately described. Moreover, the type species for that genus was only
subsequently designated through a corrective nomenclatural procedure. The name
Annamaria was published with a designation of a type species and clearly listed
generic characters, and is therefore preferable. Hence, Annamaria should at least have
been cited objectively by the applicants: consequently it must be applied. In contrast,
for the unavailable name Eucharia, one of the applicants proposed Lamasina,
although he had clearly demonstrated that he was well aware of the existence of the
name Annamaria, a senior synonym (Robbins, 2002). This applicant failed to use the
name in such manner, instead considering it subjectively unavailable (Robbins, 2004;
Robbins & Lamas, 2008; see Balint, 2009, 2010).
13. The same applicant correctly replaced the junior homonym Guilliveria d’Abrera
& Balint, 2001 with Megathecla Robbins, 2002 but that applicant made no attempt
to contact either of us to inform us that the homonym Guiliveria was in need of
replacement, as recommended by the Code of Ethics. The other names in the case
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 209
were not considered to be unavailable at that time, but this concept has since been
reversed in the eumaeine checklist compiled by one of the applicants (Robbins,
2004b) for a book edited by the other applicant (Lamas, 2004). This was finally
crystallised in Case 3458 and subsequent joint papers of the applicants (see Balint,
2009).
14. The applicant working on a checklist of neotropical butterflies did contact one
of us (Dr Balint) in early 2002 when the nomenclatural note written by his colleague
(the other applicant) had most probably already been printed, or was in the last
stages of preparation for press. It was only at that late moment that the applicant first
drew the attention of Balint to Gulliveria being homonymous, but did not mention
that his colleague’s paper (Robbins, 2002) had already been submitted. This again
appears counter to the ethical recommendations in the Code. Meanwhile, Balint’s
(2002) paper with the replacement name Gullicaena Balint was written, submitted,
accepted and published on November 30 2002, with no knowledge of the other
submission on the subject. Therefore the publication date of Megathecla Robbins
(26 June 2002) indeed preceded that of the replacement name Gullicaena Balint, 2002
by five months, though we maintain this was not executed in a manner concordant
with the ethical recommendations of the Code.
15. We feel this lack of communication was indicative of an uncooperative attitude
among workers on Neotropical eumaine lycaenids, expressed in a paper authored by
one of the applicants (Robbins, 2004a) and published in a book edited by the other
applicant (Lamas, 2004). In the application to the Commission, the taxonomic
descriptions in d’Abrera’s (2001) book (which was the first modern taxonomic
overview of Neotropical eumaeines) are, in our opinion, misinterpreted and the
availability of new names is incorrectly questioned.
16. One applicant recently published a paper in which he proposed twelve
species-group replacement names in the family LYCAENIDAE as part of his work on
butterfly nomenclature on a global scale (Lamas, 2008b). Appropriately, most of his
new names honour the authors of the junior homonyms or the collector, or refer to
the geographic localities of the taxa. However, two homonyms, namely Plebejus
(Plebejides) pylaon forsteri Balint, 1990, and Albulina tibetana dAbrera, 1993,
received the replacement names that cause us to question if this was an inappropriate
test of the boundaries of point 4 of the Code of Ethics (‘no author shall propose a
name ...that would be likely to give offence on any grounds’). The name proposed
to replace forsteri is tumultus (confusion), while the name proposed to replace
tibetana 1s chaos (disorder). We respectfully suggest that it was only through
publishing Case 3458 that the authors have created tumult and confusion for these
names themselves. We also underscore that, had the authors adhered to point 3 of the
Code of Ethics, we, as authors of these names, would have been happy to establish
appropriate substitute names.
17. If this application were to be upheld, the Commission would permit a
destabilising situation in which any nomenclaturist or taxonomist might feel justified
in attempting to dismiss other publications with no objective justification, and would
undermine the need to apply to the plenary powers of the Commission to suppress
many names. Any paragraph with economic wording purporting to describe taxa
would be at risk. The sense or meaning of a taxon would be at the mercy of
manipulative grammatical or syntactic interpretation, determined by the agenda of
210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
the revisor, who could apply his subjective interpretation of the ‘purpose’ of any
original text.
18. We have concerns that one of the authors of this Case is also in a position to
vote on its outcome. We request that the Commission consider the ethical justifica-
tion if this vote is a deciding factor in the outcome of the Case.
19. In short, Case 3458, if upheld by the Commission, would create tumult and
chaos and undermine the main brief of the Code, which is the stability of scientific
nomenclature.
Additional references
Balint, Zs. 2009. Five chapters on Annamaria columbia with the description of a new genus
(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae: Eumaeini). Boletin Cientifico Centro de Museos, Museo
Historia Natural, Caldas, 13: 75-82.
Balint, Zs. 2010. Microscopic observations and notes on wing scaling in Annamaria d’Abrera
& Balint, and further notes on the genus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae: Theclinae). Lepidop-
tera Novae, 3: 29-40.
Eliot, J.N. 1973. The higher classification of the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera): a tentative
arrangement. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology), 28(6):
371-505.
Lamas, G. 2008a. Genera and genus-group names of the butterflies of the world (revised 4 Feb
2008) — 4,739 names. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/gbn/ (accessed: 23.VII.2011).
Lamas, G. 2008b. Twelve new species-group replacement names and further nomenclatural
notes on Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera). Zootaxa, 1848: 47-56.
Robbins, R.K. 2004a. Introduction to the Checklist of Eumaeini (Lycaenidae), pp. xxiv—xxx in
Lamas, G. (Ed.), Checklist: Part 4A. Hesperioidea — Papilionoidea. In Heppner, J.B.
(Ed.), Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera, vol. 5A. 439 pp. Association for Tropical
Lepidoptera; Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida.
Robbins, R.K. 2004b. Lycaenidae. Theclinae. Tribe Eumaeini, pp. 118-137 in Lamas, G. (Ed.),
Checklist: Part 4A. Hesperioidea — Papilionoidea. In Heppner, J.B. (Ed.), Atlas of
Neotropical Lepidoptera, vol. 5A. 439 pp. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera; Scientific
Publishers, Gainesville, Florida.
(2) Brian J. Craig
4 Clayhill Crescent, London SE9 4JB, U.K. (e-mail: brian.amoria@googlemail.com)
This proposal should be rejected for the following reasons:
Any description of a new genus which contains the words ‘is differentiated by’ or
an equivalent phrase, followed by a series of anatomical characters must be construed
as purporting to differentiate the genus. Article 13.1.1 of the Code only requires that
an author states characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon, not that the
characters are diagnostic, nor that the differentiation is perfect, as long as the
statement is purported to do so. It is not for Robbins or Lamas to decide what
d’Abrera & Balint (in d’Abrera, 2001) purported, any more than it is appropriate for
others to draw conclusions about Robbins & Lamas’s motives in lodging this
application. It is common sense to assume that d’Abrera & Balint purported to do
what they were required to do, i.e. differentiate their new genera.
Although the wording of the description of Annamaria (and the implication of its
one missing word) has often been quoted as an example in this debate, the other seven
new genera proposed by d’Abrera & Balint (in d’Abrera, 2001) were each introduced
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 211
using slightly different wording. For this reason these names can not be rejected in
bulk, as requested in this application. Each one should be examined on its own merits
and ruled on individually.
Robbins & Lamas (BZN 66: 349-351) have repeatedly claimed that this action is
being taken only in the interests of stability and universality, which d’Abrera & Balint
(in d’Abrera, 2001) apparently ‘breached’ in some way by describing eight new
genera, that nobody has yet questioned with regard to the soundness of the concepts
involved. There was no instability or confusion in 2001 when these were described.
All the problems that have ensued were initiated by Robbins (2002) when he
unilaterally declared the name Annamaria unavailable. The only confusion now is
whether this genus should be known by its senior name of Annamaria dAbrera &
Balint Gin d’Abrera, 2001) or by its later subjective synonym Lamasina Robbins,
2002.
For reasons that the applicants have never fully explained, the Commission 1s
being asked to make five (supposedly unavailable) names available, two of which are
to be immediately suppressed and thus made unavailable, along with six others, five
of which have barely been discussed in the application and appear to represent taxa
for which there would then be no alternative generic names. The two names proposed
by Robbins (2002) are conspicuous among the four survivors of this nomenclatural
massacre. The rejection of this proposal would confirm that all eight generic names
are available from their original descriptions.
Comment on the proposed designation of a neotype for the nominal species
Chionobas chryxus Doubleday, 1849 (currently Oeneis chryxus; Insecta,
Lepidoptera, NYMPHALIDAE)
(Case 3495; see BZN 67: 121-128; 68: 136-140)
James A. Scott
60 Estes Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80226-1254 U.S.A.
(e-mail: JameScott@juno.com)
There is clear evidence that there are two separate species throughout the Rocky
Mountains. I personally collected altacordillera in Alberta at Nigel Pass and
Highwood Pass. Charles Harp and Steve Kohler collected numerous a/tacordillera in
Montana, the former’s specimens now in the University of Colorado museum.
Specimens in that museum show both species fly together in the Wind River Mts. of
Wyoming. Paul M. Thompson and David Threatful collected a/tacordillera at Gott
Peak in British Columbia, and Norbert Kondla found it on Mt. Spieker. In NE
Nevada altacordillera occurs in the Snake Range, while the other species has been
found in the Egan Range. The two species are sympatric at 20 known locations
throughout the Rocky Mountains. And I recently (Scott, 2008) found that larvae of
altacordillera (including two subspecies from Washington and Ontario) have a
different coloration and usually have a dashed heart-band on larvae, compared to the
species depicted in the original chryxus painting which has a solid heart-band. No
known butterfly has subspecies with oviposition behaviour as different as these two
Oeneis taxa have. The problem here is that it takes time for people to learn how to
212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
identify new similar taxa, and not all lepidopterists have acquired those skills.
Difficulty of identification is nothing new: four species of Phyciodes (NYMPHALIDAE)
and seven of Celastrina (LYCAENIDAE) are now known in eastern United States, up
from two and one a few decades ago, and most lepidopterists still cannot identify
those. Females are not as good as males for identification in Oeneis chryxus-group
species: O. nevadensis and O. macouni females are almost identical while the males are
very different, and O. alberta females often resemble O. ‘chryxus’ females.
The ICZN governs nomenclature, not taxa, so squabbling about limits of taxa is
largely irrelevant. It is enough to state that the people who have carefully studied
these taxa think there are several taxa in Alberta, and a neotype is needed because the
lectotype has dubious taxon identity and disputable locality.
I had thought that the proposed chryxus neotype would be acceptable to other
lepidopterists, as it comes from the Alberta location that people generally cite as the
type locality, and it matches the phenotype of the original painting. Surely it is
preferable to stabilise nomenclature before a large body of literature using confused
names accumulates, rather than after. However, from a biological viewpoint, the
optimal neotype should come from an area where the biology of both species has
been well studied (Colorado), and the biology of these butterflies is little known in
Alberta. I was informed that the Commission can render an Opinion on this case in
multiple ways, so to satisfy the doubters and permit an optimal neotype, the best way
would be for the Commission not to designate a neotype, and either merely affirm
that the wording of Articles 72.4.1 and 72.4.1.1 of the Code is not a mistake, or make
no decision at all on the case. As written, Article 72.4.1.1 is numbered and indented
as subservient to 72.4.1; therefore 72.4.1.1 allows one to consider specimens not
mentioned in the original publication as part of the type series, only if those
specimens belong to the taxon defined by the original publication. This interpretation
prevents the worst calamity that can befall a lectotype (a lectotype that proves to
belong to a taxon different from that defined in the original publication), therefore
the writing in the 4th edition of the Code is a considerable improvement over the 3rd
edition. When this case was reviewed prior to publication, two Commissioners agreed
with this restrictive interpretation of Articles 72.4.1 and 72.4.1.1, which with Article
86.3 invalidates the lectotype, and wrote that I could just designate a neotype without
petitioning the Commission. So the absence of an Opinion on this case would satisfy
doubters and would permit an optimal neotype, although a statement that the
wording is not a mistake would contribute to John Calhoun’s request for clarification
of this Article.
Even if the original male chryxus were found, it would be considered merely a
useless paralectotype by anyone who thinks the lectotype is valid. Also, Article 73.1
clearly confirms that the male illustrated in the original publication is the holotype,
and Article 73.1.2 states that evidence outside the work may be taken into account to
help identify that specimen — any other conspecific specimens found would be
paratypes, not syntypes.
Additional reference
Scott, J.A. 2008. Early stages of Oeneis calais altacordillera Scott (plate V). Pp. 25—29, pl. 5 and
pl. 5 continued, in Scott, J. & Fisher, M.S. Geographic variation and new taxa of western
North American butterflies, especially from Colorado. Papilio (New Series), 18:1—72.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 243
Comments on Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877 (Dinosauria, Ornithischia): proposed
replacement of the type species with Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 1887
(Case 3536; see BZN 68: 127-133)
(1) Susannah C. R. Maidment
Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: s.maidment@nhm.ac.uk)
In Case 3536, Galton outlined the taxonomic history of the iconic dinosaur genus
Stegosaurus. In this Case, Galton asked the Commission to designate Stegosaurus
stenops as type species of the genus Stegosaurus, thereby allowing the holotype
specimen of Stegosaurus stenops, USNM 4934, to become the representative of the
genus Stegosaurus.
The Case is complicated by the fact that those who have worked on the taxonomy
of Stegosaurus do not agree about the taxonomic validity of various genera and
species, as clearly outlined by Galton. In Case 3536 Galton suggested that the type
specimen of Stegosaurus armatus (YPM 1850), which is the type species of Stego-
saurus, bears no synapomorphies of Stegosaurus or autapomorphies of its own,
making the name Stegosaurus armatus a nomen dubium. However, Mossbrucker et
al. (2009) have suggested that YPM 1850 may bear an autapomorphy, making the
name Stegosaurus armatus valid.
If YPM 1850 is undiagnostic, the generic name Stegosaurus is a nomen dubium. If
YPM 1850 is diagnostic, as has been tentatively suggested by Mossbrucker et al.
(2009), the name Stegosaurus armatus would likely be restricted to YPM 1850
because, as argued by Galton in the Case, YPM 1850 bears no other synapomorphies
of Stegosaurus (in its current usage); thus all other material currently referred to the
genus Stegosaurus would need a new generic name. Hypsirhophus discursus was
named by Cope (1878) for a partial dorsal vertebra (AMNH 5731). Galton (2010)
considered this specimen to be diagnostic and Hypsirhophus a distinct genus although
for Maidment et al. (2008) and Maidment (2010) Hypsirhophus is the next available
nominal genus to contain all other species of stegosaur formerly included in
Stegosaurus.
Stegosaurus is one of the most iconic and most recognisable dinosaurs to both the
public and scientists alike; the loss of the name Stegosaurus is therefore an
unfavourable outcome.
Maidment et al. (2008) suggested that all stegosaur material from the Morrison
Formation of the USA belonged to a single species (except for material described as
Hesperosaurus mjosi by Carpenter et al. [2001]). Maidment et al. (2008) named this
species Stegosaurus armatus, but diagnostic characters were based on a referred
specimen, USNM 4934, the holotype of Stegosaurus stenops, which Maidment et al.
(2008) considered to be a junior synonym of Stegosaurus armatus. Designating
Stegosaurus stenops as the type species of Stegosaurus results in USNM 4934 being
the specimen on which Stegosaurus is based. This is entirely appropriate because
USNM 4934 is one of the most complete stegosaurs known from anywhere in the
world, and the specimen has been used as the reference specimen against which other
stegosaurs are compared since a detailed and definitive description of it was
214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
published (Gilmore, 1914). This is entirely in keeping with the work of Maidment
et al. (2008), because USNM 4934 was used as the reference specimen in that work.
As Galton has argued in the Case, it is more favourable to designate Stegosaurus
stenops as the type species of Stegosaurus than to make USNM 4934 the type
specimen of Stegosaurus armatus, because of the questions surrounding the presence
or absence of diagnostic characters in the holotype of Stegosaurus armatus. By
designating a new type species for Stegosaurus, problems of taxonomy relating to
YPM 1850 are circumvented. I therefore fully support the proposal by Galton in
Case 3536.
(2) Kenneth Carpenter
Prehistoric Museum, 155 East Main Street, Price, UT 84501, U.S.A.
(e-mail: Ken.Carpenter@usu.edu)
The taxon Stegosaurus armatus was established by O.C. Marsh in 1877 on a very
fragmentary specimen from the Morrison Formation near Morrison, Colorado
(erroneously stated to be ‘Morrison, Wyoming’ by Galton, BZN 68: 127). The
specimen was encased in silicified sandstone and collected very poorly by modern
standards using hammers and chisels, plus explosives to reduce the rock into more
manageable pieces. The result is that much of the specimen was greatly damaged and
many pieces missing, thus making it only marginally diagnostic (Carpenter & Galton,
2001), as noted by Galton (BZN 68: 130) in his petition. Such situations are
unfortunately common for dinosaur specimens named during the 1800s that now
require petitions to the Commission to ensure their stability (e.g. Case 3037, Charig
& Chapman, 1998; Case 3506, Paul & Carpenter, 2010). In these examples, specimens
displayed characters once thought to be unique but which were later found to be
more widely distributed through the discovery of more complete specimens. Wilson
& Upchurch (2003) refer to this as ‘historical obsolescence’. Stegosaurus armatus
certainly falls into this category in that the hexangular caudal vertebrae and large,
plate-like osteoderms were thought unique among the Dinosauria. However, subse-
quent discoveries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America have shown that these
characters occur in other taxa referred to the Stegosauria. As noted by Galton (BZN
68: 131), the type of S. armatus has no autapomorphic characters, therefore it cannot
be separated from any other taxon of Stegosauria.
In contrast to S. armatus, the nominal species Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 1887 is
represented by several nearly complete skeletons and thus is very well known. These
specimens form the basis for the current concept of the genus Stegosaurus (Marsh,
1887, 1891; Gilmore, 1914; Carpenter & Galton, 2001; Carpenter et al., 2001; Galton
& Upchurch, 2004; Maidment et al., 2008; Carpenter, 2010; Galton, 2010). Because
Stegosaurus is such an iconic dinosaur, and because the name is so well entrenched
in the scientific literature, its name should be associated with material of taxonomic
utility. That such is not currently the case is shown by Maidment et al. (2008)
declaring Hypsirophus discursus, Stegosaurus ungulatus, S. duplex, Diracodon laticeps,
and Stegosaurus stenops to be junior synonyms of S. armatus. However, the result is
the creation of a ‘superspecies’ showing a wider range of non-ontogenetic variation
throughout the skeleton than any other species of Dinosauria, except waste-basket
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 215
taxa (e.g., [guanodon prior to Paul, 2008). As Carpenter (2010) has noted, the range
of variation in S. armatus (sensu Maidment et al., 2008) cannot be replicated in other
large samples of stegosaurids (e.g. Kentrosaurus aethiopicus from Africa), therefore
casting doubt on the validity of the variations, which in turn casts doubt on the
concept of S. armatus as defined by Maidment et al. (2008). All of this confusion
would be eliminated by replacing the nominal species S. armatus with S. stenops as
petitioned by Galton (BZN 68: 127-133), thereby ensuring taxonomic stability for
the well-known genus Stegosaurus.
Additional references
Charig, A.J. & Chapman, S.D. 1998. Case 3037. Iguanodon Mantel, 1825 (Reptilia, Orni-
thischia): proposed designation of I[guanodon bernissartensis Boulenger in Beneden, 1881
as the type species, and proposed designation of a lectotype. Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature, 55(2): 99-104.
Paul, G.S. 2008. A revised taxonomy of the iguanodont dinosaur genera and species.
Cretaceous Research, 29, 192-216.
Paul, G.S. & Carpenter, K. 2010. Case 3506. Al/osaurus Marsh, 1877 (Dinosauria, Theropoda):
proposed conservation of usage by designation of a neotype for its type species A//osaurus
fragilis Marsh, 1877. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 67(1): 1-4.
Wilson, J.A. & Upchurch, P. 2003. A revision of Titanosaurus Lydekker (Dinosauria —
Sauropoda), the first dinosaur genus with a ‘Gondwanan’ distribution. Journal of
Systematic Palaeontology, 1: 125-160.
(3) Vahe Demirjian
II Canyon Terrace, Newport Coast, CA 92657 U.S.A.
(e-mail: vahedemirjian@cox.net)
I am writing in support of the petition (Case 3536) by Galton to replace Stegosaurus
armatus Marsh, 1877 with S. stenops Marsh, 1887 as the type species of Stegosaurus
Marsh, 1877.
Maidment et al. (2008) diagnosed Stegosaurus on the basis of the following
autapomorphies: (1) Quadrate-squamosal-paroccipital process articulation over-
hangs the retroarticular process of the lower jaw; (2) postzygapophyses on posterior
cervical vertebrae are elongated posteriorly and overhang the back of the centrum;
(3) transverse processes on anterior caudal vertebrae (except for caudals one and two)
project ventrally rather than laterally; (4) large, rectangular acromial process of the
scapula; (5) supra-acetabular process diverges at an angle of 90 degrees from the
anterior process of the ilium; and (6) medial process present on the posterior iliac
process of the ilium. They also noted that Stegosaurus armatus (= Stegosaurus sensu
Carpenter et al. 2001 of my usage) differs from all other stegosaurs in having: (1)
edentulous portion of the dentary anterior to the tooth row and posterior to the
predentary; (2) dorsally elevated postzygapophyses of the cervical vertebrae; (3)
bifurcated summits of the neural spines of the anterior and middle caudal vertebrae;
(4) unexpanded posterior end of the pubis; and (5) dermal ossicles embedded in the
skin on the underside of the cervical region. They referred all stegosaur taxa from the
Morrison Formation (except Stegosaurus sulcatus, S. longispinus, and Hesperosaurus
mjosi) to S. armatus.
216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Of the autapomorphies cited for sTEGOSAURINAE (=Stegosaurus) and Stegosaurus
(= S. armatus) by Maidment et al., only two characters can be observed in the
holotype of Stegosaurus armatus (YPM 1850): transverse processes on anterior
caudal vertebrae (except for caudals one and two) project ventrally rather than
laterally and bifurcated summits of the neural spines of the anterior and middle
caudal vertebrae. As acknowledged by Galton (2010), the presence of transverse
processes on anterior caudal vertebrae (except for caudals one and two) that project
ventrally rather than laterally is not confined to YPM 1850 and other specimens
referred to S. armatus by Maidment et al. (e.g. USNM 4934, YPM 1853) but is also
found in Hesperosaurus mjosi and Stegosaurus longispinus. The caudals of YPM
1850 exhibit bifurcated summits of the neural spines of the anterior and middle
caudal vertebrae (Carpenter & Galton, 2001, fig. 4.4G; Galton, 2010, fig. 1b), an
autapomorphy of Stegosaurus armatus according to Maidment et al., but as Galton
demonstrated, this character is also present in Stegosaurus ungulatus (YPM 1853,
YPM 1858), S. stenops (USNM 4934, DMNS 2818), S. /ongispinus (UW 20503), and
the holotype of Hypsirophus discursus (AMNH 5731). Using the updated list of
synapomorphies for Stegosauria, and STEGOSAURIDAE provided by Mateus et al.
(2009, supplementary information), a stegosaurian placement of S. armatus is
supported by the presence of two parasagittal rows of plates or spines extending
from the cervical region to the end of the tail (Carpenter & Galton, 2001, fig. 4.5C).
YPM 1850 can be assigned to STEGOSAURIDAE based on the presence of a dorsal
process on transverse process of caudal vertebrae and anterior caudal vertebrae
with bulbous swellings at the top of neural spines (Carpenter & Galton, 2001,
figs 4.4D, F).
Using the criteria outlined by Galton regarding the autapomorphic structure of
dermal armor for Morrison stegosaur species, Stegosaurus ungulatus, S. stenops,
S. longispinus, and Hesperosaurus mjosi differ from each other in the form of the
dermal armor, as well as characters of the femur and ilium, as noted by Galton.
However, except for fragments of a large dermal plate, no dermal armor is preserved
in the holotype of S. armatus, so YPM 1850 lacks any dermal characters that
would distinguish it from S. ungulatus, S. stenops, S. longispinus, or Hesperosaurus
mjosl.
In a recent abstract, Mossbrucker et al. (2009) indicated that the holotype of
Stegosaurus armatus is distinguishable from other Morrison stegosaurs by the
presence of unusually robust neural spines, based on recent preparation of the
holotype at the Morrison Natural History Museum (MNHM). However, this
character is likely to be a product of individual variation within a species, and the
results of Mossbrucker et al. have not yet been published. Thus, sTEGOSAURINAE
(= Stegosaurus sensu Maidment et al., 2008) comprises three valid genera, Hespero-
saurus, Stegosaurus, and Wuerhosaurus; Stegosaurus sensu Carpenter et al., 2001
(= Stegosaurus armatus sensu Maidment et al., 2008) comprises three valid species
(Stegosaurus ungulatus, S. stenops, and S. longispinus), with Stegosaurus armatus,
Hypsirophus discursus, Diracodon laticeps, and Stegosaurus sulcatus referable to
Stegosaurus sensu stricto (restricted to S. stenops, S. longispinus, and S. ungulatus) as
nomina dubia. I provisionally agree with Galton in considering S. armatus a nomen
dubium and restricting it to YPM 1850 until the results of Mossbrucker et al. are
published and YPM 1850 is fully described.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 217
Additional references
Mateus, O., Maidment S.C.R. & Christiansen, N.A. 2009. A new long-necked ‘sauropod-
mimic’ stegosaur and the evolution of the plated dinosaurs. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 276: 1815-1821.
Preprints of selected comments:
To speed dissemination and facilitate discussion, preprints of selected comments will
be available online at http://iczn.org/preprints. Please check this page regularly for
new additions.
218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
OPINION 2277 (Case 3504)
Onthophagus rugulosus Harold, 1886 (Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE):
specific name conserved
Abstract. The Commission has conserved the specific name of the dung beetle
Onthophagus rugulosus Harold, 1886 (Coleoptera: sCARABAEIDAE), a widespread
species from East Asia, by suppressing the senior secondary homonym Elytridium
rugulosum Heer, 1870, a fragmentary fossil from the Miocene of Spitsbergen,
Norway, that was transferred to Onthophagus in 1977. A replacement name,
O. spitsbergeniensis nom. nov., has been provided for the dubious fossil species.
Keywords. Nomenclature; Coleoptera; SCARABAEIDAE; Onthophagus; Elytridium;
Onthophagus rugulosus; Onthophagus spitsbergeniensis; dung beetles; Miocene; East
Asia; Spitsbergen.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the specific name rugulosum
Heer, 1870, as published in the binomen Elytridium rugulosum, and all uses of
the name before Harold (1886) are suppressed for the purposes of both the
Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) rugulosus Harold, 1886, as published in the binomen Onthophagus rugulosus;
(b) spitsbergeniensis Krell, 2010, as published in the binomen Onthophagus
spitsbergeniensis, replacement name for Elytridium rugulosum Heer, 1870.
(3) The name rugulosum Heer, 1870, as published in the binomen Elytridium
rugulosum and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3504
An application to conserve the specific name of the dung beetle Onthophagus
rugulosus Harold, 1886 (Coleoptera: SCARABAEIDAE), a widespread species from East
Asia, by suppressing the senior secondary homonym Elytridium rugulosum Heer,
1870, based on a fragmentary fossil from the Miocene of Spitsbergen, Norway, that
was transferred to Onthophagus in 1977, was received from Frank-Thorsten Krell
(Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO, U.S.A.) on 17 September 2009.
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 67: 28-31 (March 2010). The
title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website.
No comments were received on this case.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 March 2011 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 67: 29. At the close of the voting period on | June 2011
the votes were as follows:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 219
Affirmative votes — 25: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier,
Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Minelli, Ng, Pape,
Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou.
Negative votes — 0.
Alonso-Zarazaga, Lim and Pyle were on leave of absence.
Voting FOR, Grygier said he would have liked to know whether the holotype of
Onthophagus spitsbergeniensis is extant and, if so, where and with what catalogue
information, even though this is not required information for a replacement name.
Ng said that the replacement name had already been proposed and was nomenclatu-
rally valid as the BZN is a valid publication. Winston, voting FOR, commented that
basing a Recent species on a fossil type usually turns out to be a mistake. Zhou,
voting FOR, noted that the replacement name would be invalid if the case was not
supported by the Commission.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes
by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
rugulosum, Elytridium, Heer, 1870, Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 8(7):
78.
rugulosus, Onthophagus, Harold, 1886, in Heyden, L. von, Harold, [E.] von & Kraatz, G. 1886.
Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 30: 289.
spitsbergeniensis, Onthophagus, Krell, 2010, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 67: 29.
220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
OPINION 2278 (Case 3489)
Chrysomela elongata Suffrian, 1851 (currently Oreina elongata;
Insecta, Coleoptera): name conserved
Abstract. The Commission has conserved the use of the well known alpine leaf beetle
name Oreina elongata (Suffrian, 1851), originally published as Chrysomela elongata,
and thus a junior primary homonym of Chrysomela elongata Linnaeus, 1758,
currently known as Tillus elongatus (Linnaeus, 1758).
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Coleoptera; CHRYSOMELIDAE; Oreina
elongata; alpine leaf beetle.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name e/ongata Suffrian,
1851, as published in the binomen Chrysomela elongata, is not invalid by
reason of being a junior primary homonym of elongata Linnaeus, 1758, as
published in the binomen Chrysomela elongata.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) elongata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Chrysomela elon-
gata;
(b) elongata Suffrian, 1851, as published in the binomen Chrysomela elongata,
with the endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior
primary homonym of e/ongata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the
binomen Chrysomela elongata, as ruled in (1) above.
History of Case 3489
An application to conserve the use of the well known alpine leaf beetle name Oreina
elongata (Suffrian, 1851), originally published as Chrysomela elongata, and thus a
junior primary homonym of Chrysomela elongata Linnaeus, 1758, currently known
as Tillus elongatus (Linnaeus, 1758), was received from Hans Silfverberg (Finnish
Museum of Natural History, Zoological Museum, Helsinki University, Helsinki,
Finland) on 3 March 2009. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 66:
320-322 (December 2009). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were
published on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on this case.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 December 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 66: 321. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
2011 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 22: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier,
Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Minelli, Pape, Papp, Patterson,
Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, and Zhou.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 221
Negative votes — 2: Lamas and Lim.
Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng, Pyle and Zhang were on leave of absence.
Voting FOR, Harvey commented that, although he felt the case was relatively
straightforward and he supported the application to maintain existing usage of the
junior homonym, he advised that details of any existing type specimens of both
Chrysomela elongata Linnaeus, 1758 and Chrysomela elongata Suffrian, 1851 should
be supplied to verify current taxonomic placements.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
elongata, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 377.
elongata, Chrysomela, Suffrian, 1851, Linnaea Entomologica, 5: 146.
222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
OPINION 2279 (Case 3488)
Papilio danae Fabricius, 1775 (currently Colotis danae; Insecta,
Lepidoptera, PIERIDAE): usage conserved by the suppression of Papilio
danae Hutnagel, 1766
Abstract. The combination Papilio danae Fabricius, 1775 (Lepidoptera, PIERIDAE) has
been conserved by suppression of the primary homonym Papilio danae Hufnagel,
1766. The current combination Colotis danae is well-established as the valid name for
a common and widespread butterfly with many subspecies in Africa, Arabia, and
Asia.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Lepidoptera; PIERIDAE; Papilio; Colotis;
Colotis danae; Papilio eborea; butterflies; Asia; Arabia; Africa.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name danae Hufnagel,
1766, as published in the binomen Papilio danae, is suppressed for the purposes
of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name danae Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Papilio danae, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(3) The name danae Hufnagel, 1766, as published in the binomen Papilio danae, is
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology.
History of Case 3488
An application to conserve the combination Papilio danae Fabricius, 1775 (Lepidop-
tera, PIERIDAE) by suppression of the primary homonym Papilio danae Hufnagel, 1766
was received from Torben B. Larsen (Denmark), R.I. Vane-Wright (Natural History
Museum, London, U.K. and Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University
of Kent, Canterbury U.K.), Krushnamegh Kunte (Harvard University, Cambridge,
MA, U.S.A.) and Vazrick Nazari (University of Guelph, ON, Canada) on 17 February
2009. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 66: 250—255 (September
2009). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commis-
sion’s website. A comment in support was published in BZN 67: 65.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 66: 253. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
2010 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 24: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier,
Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Minelli, Pape, Papp,
Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou.
Negative votes — 1: Lim.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 225
Alonso-Zarazaga, Ng and Pyle were on leave of absence.
Voting FOR, Halliday said the Case presented an overwhelming argument for the
protection of the name danae Fabricius, 1775. The use of the name Papilio eborea was
a clear example of the over-zealous and pedantic application of the letter of the Code,
in a way that was inconsistent with stability. However, he felt it was unfortunate that
the Case depended heavily on the use of Google as evidence of usage. He said he
thought the Commission should make an explicit statement that they strongly
discourage the use of Google because it produces spurious and misleading results.
This point was made very eloquently in a Comment entitled ‘Googleology’: Powerful
tool or unreliable evidence by Lawrence, Pelkey & Soares (BZN 67: 246-254). In the
future authors should be instructed not to use Google, but instead to base their
arguments on a more thoughtful and critical analysis of the genuine scientific
literature. Stys said that although he was voting FOR, he regretted that the published
Case had not used the terminology of the Code. The authors’ ‘replacement name
Papilio eborea’ (paragraph 10) is actually a ‘substitute name’ (cf. Glossary of the
Code). Moreover, Stys also felt that the number of hits in Google should not be used
in nomenclatural argumentation (paragraphs 9 &10). For example, the authors of the
Case gave 3,700 hits for Colotis danae while only 12 for ‘“Hipparchia danae Hufnagel
and Papilio danae Hufnagel” (as from 30 September 2009); whereas Stys’ subsequent
search (25 September 2010) provided 19,700 for ‘“‘Colotis danae’’, 64,300 for
‘Hipparchia danae”’ and 3,020 for “Papilio danae’’ using the names without authors,
4,630 for “Colotis danae Fabricius’, 5,380 for “Colotis danae Hufnagel’, 1,290 for
‘“Hipparchia danae Fabricius’, 998 for ‘“‘Hipparchia danae Hufnagel”, 2,620 for
“Papilio danae Fabricius” and 1,800 for “Papilio danae Hufnagel’. Stys said the
utility and reliability of such data needed no further comment. Voting FOR, Yanega
felt it should not, in principle, have been necessary to vote on this Case. He suggested
that Article 29.3.5 is sufficient to indicate that the two names are not homonyms.
However, the inappropriate actions of Kocak would seem to make a Commission
ruling desirable to prevent further confusion.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes
by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
danae, Papilio, Fabricius, 1775, Systema entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines,
genera, species, adiectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus. [xxxii], Officina
Libraria Kortii, Flensburgi & Lipsiae, p. 476.
danae, Papilio, Hufnagel, 1766, Berlinisches Magazin, oder gesammlete Schriften und Nach-
richten fiir die Liebhaber der Arzneywissenschaft, Naturgeschichte und der angenehmen
Wissenschaften tiberhaupt, 2(1): 82.
224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
OPINION 2280 (Case 3436)
Pachynematus Konow, 1890 (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Symphyta):
generic name given precedence over Epitactus Forster, 1854
Abstract. The Commission has conserved the widely used sawfly generic name
Pachynematus Konow, 1890 by giving it precedence over a rarely used name
Epitactus Forster, 1854, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. Sawflies in
this genus are of economic significance as pests of cereal and grass-fodder crops in
North America, Europe and China.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; TENTHREDINIDAE; NEMATINAE;
Pachynematus; Epitactus; Nematus trisignatus; Epitactus praecox; sawflies; Holarctic.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power the name Pachynematus Konow, 1890 is hereby given
precedence over the name Epitactus Forster, 1854 whenever the two are
considered to be synonyms.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:
(a) Pachynematus Konow, 1890 (gender: masculine), type species by subse-
quent designation by Schmidt et al. (1998) Nematus trisignatus Forster,
1854, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Epitactus
Forster, 1854 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) Epitactus Forster, 1854 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Epitactus praecox Forster, 1854, with the endorsement that it is not to be
given priority over Pachynematus Konow, 1890, whenever the two are
considered to be synonyms. |
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) trisignatus Forster, 1854, as published in the binomen Nematus trisignatus
(specific name of the type species of Pachynematus Konow, 1890);
(b) praecox Forster, 1854, as published in the binomen Epitactus praecox
(specific name of the type species of Epitactus Forster, 1854).
History of Case 3436
An application to conserve the widely used sawfly generic name Pachynematus
Konow, 1890 by giving it precedence over the rarely used senior subjective synonym
Epitactus Forster, 1854, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms, was
received from Andrew D. Liston (Senckenberg Deutsches Entomologisches Institut,
Miincheberg, Germany) on 6 August 2007. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 67: 32-37 (March 2010). The title, abstract and keywords of the
case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on
this case.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 225
Decision of the Commission
On | March 2011 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 67: 35. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 2011
the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 19: Ballerio, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Harvey,
Kojima, Krell, Lamas, Minelli, Ng, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, Winston,
Yanega, Zhang and Zhou.
Negative votes — 6: Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Kottelat, Kullander, Pape and van Tol.
Alonso-Zarazaga, Lim and Pyle were on leave of absence.
Voting AGAINST, Bouchet commented that conditional reversals of precedence
are a source of nomenclatural instability. Although he sympathised with the intention
of the author, he could not technically endorse the solution that was offered to solve
the case.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Pachynematus Konow, 1890, Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 1890(2): 233 & 238.
Epitactus Forster, 1854 Verhandlungen der naturhistorischen Vereines der preussischen Rhein-
lande und Westfalens (N.F.), 1: 435.
trisignatus, Nematus, Forster, 1854, Verhandlungen der naturhistorischen Vereines der preussis-
chen Rheinlande und Westfalens (N.F.), 1: 292.
praecox, Epitactus, Forster, 1854, Verhandlungen der naturhistorischen Vereines der preussis-
chen Rheinlande und Westfalens (N.F.), 1: 435.
226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
OPINION 2281 (Case 3507)
Phylloporina Ulrich in Foerste, 1887 (Bryozoa, Fenestrata,
Phylloporinina): Retepora trentonensis Nicholson, 1875 designated as
the type species
Abstract. The Commission has set aside Retepora angulata Hall, 1852 and Retepora
angulata Hall as applied by Foerste, 1887 as type species of the Palaeozoic bryozoan
genus Phylloporina Ulrich in Foerste, 1887 and replaced them with Retepora
trentonensis Nicholson, 1875.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Bryozoa; Phylloporinina; PHYLLOPORINIDAE;
Phylloporina; Chasmatopora; Retepora angulata; Retepora trentonensis; bryozoans;
Palaeozoic.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power all previous type species fixations for the nominal
genus Phylloporina Ulrich in Foerste, 1887 are hereby set aside and Retepora
trentonensis Nicholson, 1875 is hereby designated as the type species.
(2) The name PAylloporina Ulrich in Foerste, 1887 (gender: feminine), type species
Retepora trentonensis Nicholson, 1875 by designation in (1) above, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name trentonensis Nicholson, 1875, as published in the binomen Retepora
trentonensis (specific name of the type species of Phylloporina Ulrich in
Foerste, 1887, as ruled in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3507
An application to set aside Retepora angulata Hall, 1852 and Retepora angulata Hall
as applied by Foerste, 1887 as type species of the Palaeozoic bryozoan genus
Phylloporina Ulrich in Foerste, 1887 and replace them with Retepora trentonensis
Nicholson, 1875, was received from Frank K. McKinney (Appalachian State
University, Boone, NC, U.S.A.) and Patrick N. Wyse Jackson (Trinity College,
Dublin, Ireland) on 18 November 2009. After correspondence the case was published
in BZN 67: 38-43 (March 2010). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were
published on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on this case.
Decision of the Commission
On | March 2011 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 67: 41. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 2011
the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 23: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier,
Halliday, Harvey, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Minelli, Pape, Papp, Patterson,
Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 Zot
Negative votes — 2: Kojima and Ng.
Alonso-Zarazaga, Lim and Pyle were on leave of absence.
Voting FOR, Stys said he wondered why the more straightforward solution was
not suggested that would affect only the date and not the type species. Phylloporina
Ulrich in Foerste, 1887, type species Retropora angulata Foerste, 1887 non Hall, 1852
(misidentified, later renamed Chasmatopora foerstei McKinney & Wyse Jackson,
2010; fixed by monotypy) was a senior homonym of Phylloporina Ulrich, 1890 (type
species Retropora trentonensis Nicholson, 1875; subsequently designated by Ulrich,
1895). The senior homonym (a junior subjective synonym of Chasmatopora
Eichwald, 1855) could simply have been suppressed in favour of the junior name.
However, Winston, also voting FOR, said she thought the present solution was the
simplest way to clarify a confused nomenclatural problem.
Voting AGAINST, Kojima said that for the stability of the generic name
Phylloporina, he did not find it necessary to set aside all previous type species
fixations for the nominal genus Phylloporina and to designate Retepora trentonensis
as the type species. Ng, also voting AGAINST, said he was not convinced that a
ruling needed to be made, even though the authors made an excellent case for how
complicated the taxonomy of the two genera involved was and how doubtful the true
identities of the type species. These animals were of minimal scientific impact and
were currently the subject of study only by taxonomists. He felt that it might be best
just to accept that the type species was Retepora angulata Hall, 1852 and move the
taxonomy on from there. It mattered not what the original intent was or whose
concept it was, as long as there was now a one-off resolution and the science could
progress from that point. Ng granted that there would be a short period of confusion
but he felt that taxonomists could surely cope.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Phylloporina Ulrich in Foerste, 1887, Bulletin of the Scientific Laboratories of Denison
University, 2: 150.
trentonensis, Retepora, Nicholson, 1875, Geological Magazine, New Series, Decade 2, 2: 37.
228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
OPINION 2282 (Case 3502)
Coluber nummifer Reuss, 1834 (currently Hemorrhois nummifer;
Reptilia, Serpentes): specific name conserved
Abstract. The Commission has conserved the widely used specific name nummifer
Reuss, 1834 for an eastern Mediterranean colubrine snake originally published
within Coluber Linnaeus, 1758 and currently referred to the genus Hemorrhois Boie,
1826, by suppressing the putative senior synonym Coluber tyria Linnaeus, 1758.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; COLUBRIDAE; Coluber; Coluber tyria;
Hemorrhois nummifer; coin snake; diadem snake; eastern Mediterranean; Saharo-
Sindian.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power the specific name tyria Linnaeus, 1758, as published
in the binomen Coluber tyria, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority, but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name nummifer Reuss, 1834, as published in the binomen Coluber
nummifer, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(3) The name tyria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coluber tyria and
as suppressed in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3502
An application to conserve the widely used specific name nummifer Reuss, 1834 for
an eastern Mediterranean colubrine snake originally published within Coluber
Linnaeus, 1758 and currently referred to the genus Hemorrhois Boie, 1826, by
suppressing the putative senior synonym Coluber tyria Linnaeus, 1758, was received
from Beat Schatti (San Pedro Pochutla, Oaxaca, Mexico) and Frank Tillack (Berlin,
Germany) on 2 September 2009. After correspondence the case was published in BZN
67: 44-52 (March 2010). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published
on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on this case.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 March 2011 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 67: 47. At the close of the voting period on | June 2011
the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 21: Ballerio, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday,
Harvey, Kojima, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Minelli, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Rosen-
berg, Stys, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou.
Negative votes — 3: Bogutskaya, Ng and van Tol.
Kottelat abstained. Alonso-Zarazaga, Lim and Pyle were on leave of absence.
Voting AGAINST, Ng said that while he was very sympathetic to the case and the
arguments, he did not believe the solution suggested here was the best way forward
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 229
for long-term stability. He felt that the fact that the name had been used probably
incorrectly in some cases did not change the rules involved. Considering that the
species of snake in question had not been widely used in other domains of biology,
and was primarily used in ecology, faunistics and systematics, an eventual change in
name, perhaps to Coluber tyria Linnaeus, 1758 with an appropriate neotype selection,
should not cause substantial problems. Voting AGAINST, van Tol said that this case
should have been resolved by designating a neotype for Coluber tyria.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes
by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
nummifer, Coluber, Reuss, 1834, Museum Senckenbergianum, 1(6): 135.
tyria, Coluber, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. Salvii, Holmiae, p. 224.
230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
OPINION 2283 (Case 3390)
Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 (Aves): conservation of
usage by designation of a neotype
Abstract. The Commission has set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal
species Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 and designated a feathered
specimen (BMNH 37001) in the Natural History Museum, London as the neotype.
The holotype (a feather impression) was not identifiable to species and could belong
to any taxon of fossil birds recognised from the Solnhofen limestone.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; Archaeopteryx; Archaeopteryx litho-
graphica; neotype; Solnhofen; Jurassic.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that all previous type fixations for
the nominal species Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 are set aside
and specimen BMNH 37001 at the Natural History Museum, London is
designated as the neotype.
(2) It is hereby ruled that both the generic and specific names Archaeopteryx and
lithographica were made available by von Meyer, 1861 in ‘Archaeopterix
lithographica (Vogel-Feder) und Pterodactylus von Solenhofen. Neues Jahrbuch
fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde, p. 679.’
(3) The entries in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology for the names Archaeopteryx von Meyer,
1861 and lithographica von Meyer, 1861, as published in the binomen
Archaeopteryx lithographica, are hereby emended to record the neotype
designation as in (1) above and the date and pagination as in (2) above.
History of Case 3390
An application to preserve stability and universality of usage of the name Archae-
opteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 by setting aside the existing holotype and
designating a neotype, was received from Walter J. Bock (Columbia University, New
York, NY, U.S.A.) and Paul Bihler (deceased, formerly of University of Stuttgart-
Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany) on 5 June 2006. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 64: 182-184 (December 2007). The title, abstract and keywords of
the case were published on the Commission’s website. Comments (seven supporting,
one opposing) were published in BZN 64: 261-262, 65: 314-317 (with additional
proposals), 66: 87-88, 66: 357-358; 67: 90-93, 67: 179. An additional comment
correcting the page reference for the name was received and circulated before the
vote; this will be available on the Commission website.
Decision of the Commission
On | March 2011 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
original set of proposals published in BZN 64: 184 and the modified set of proposals
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 Zon
in BZN 65: 317 (which included the original two proposals as 1 & 3 and the addition
of proposal 2 as reflected in the ruling above). At the close of the voting period on
1 June 2011 the votes were as follows:
Original proposals:
Affirmative votes — 14: Ballerio, Bouchet, Brothers, Grygier, Harvey, Krell,
Kullander, Lamas, Pape, Rosenberg, Stys, Winston, Yanega and Zhang.
Negative votes — 8: Halliday, Kojima, Minelli, Ng, Papp, Patterson, van Tol and
Zhou.
Bogutskaya split her vote, Fautin abstained. Alonso-Zarazaga, Kottelat, Lim and
Pyle were on leave of absence.
Modified proposals:
Affirmative votes — 20: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Halliday,
Harvey, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Minelli, Ng, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg,
Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, and Zhou.
Negative votes — 2: Kojima and Pape,
Grygier split his vote, Fautin abstained. Alonso-Zarazaga, Kottelat, Lim and Pyle
were on leave of absence.
As the modified proposals have passed, and include all of the content of the
original proposals, this decision is taken as binding for both sets of proposals.
Voting FOR both sets of proposals, Brothers said that it seemed eminently sensible
to ensure clarity in the application of this famous name, which was not possible from
the current holotype, and designation of the requested neotype would accomplish
this. The elimination of ambiguities in its attribution was also assisted by confirma-
tion as to the publication in which the names were made available. Also voting FOR
both sets of proposals, Lamas commented that, based on the evidence available, the
proposals initially suggested by Bock & Buhler, ably improved by Kadolsky,
appeared to him to be the simplest and most rational solution. Voting FOR both sets
of proposals Rosenberg said that some of the published comments on this case
suggested hypothetical scenarios. One scenario was that detailed anatomical and
morphometric study would show all of the feather-bearing nominal species known
from Solnhofen are synonymous, in which case a neotype would not be necessary
(i.e. given time, the case would resolve itself). Another is that future discoveries
would show unequivocally that more than one feather-bearing species occurred at
Solnhofen (i.e. sooner or later a neotype would be needed). He pointed out that while
these scenarios were both reasonable, the Commission must deal with the current
situation, not hypothetical ones. If only one nominal species had so far been
described from Solnhofen, Rosenberg said he would agree that designation of a
neotype was premature, but the current situation was that some workers considered
there to be only one feather-bearing species at Solnhofen whereas others regard there
to be more than one. As an example of the latter he cited Senter & Robins (2003,
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 23: 961-965), who did a morphometric analysis
on six Archaeopteryx skeletons, but a priori excluded the specimen assigned to
Wellnhoferia ‘due to the specimen’s unique pedal and caudal characteristics’.
Therefore, Rosenberg regarded designation of a neotype as necessary. Stys, who
voted FOR both sets of proposals, said that it was unclear how to vote against the
first set of proposals since the first set of proposals was actually only a subset of the
second. He suggested a better formulation would have been to vote on whether (b)
282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Fig. 1. Archaeopteryx lithographica (neotype BMNH 37001, the Natural History Museum, London).
©The Natural History Museum, London image 001233. Length of tibiae (for scale) 80.7 mm.
should be included or not. On the content of the Case, he said he thought that the
whole specimen was better as the name-bearing type than a non-identifiable feather,
particularly since no change of name and no alteration of taxonomic concept was
involved. Winston, voting FOR both sets of proposals, said that the modified set
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 20
seemed necessary as a comment on the details of the process by which the name
became available. Yanega, voting FOR both sets of proposals, said it was quite clear
to him that the London specimen had long been taken, in practice, as the de facto
type of A. lithographica. He thought it seemed perfectly sensible to formalise this
unambiguously, as well as to resolve any ambiguities regarding the publication that
made the name available, to forestall any future controversy.
Grygier, voting FOR the first set of proposals and splitting his vote for the second
set of proposals as FOR 1, AGAINST 2 & 3, explained that statement 1 is identical
in both sets of proposals, and that he felt there seemed to be no need for Kadolsky’s
additional proposal 2 in the modified set as Archaeopteryx and lithographica are
already available from the specified von Meyer work of 1861 by virtue of their being
listed as such in the respective Official Lists (Article 80.4 of the Code). The plenary
power would be needed to change this status, not to maintain it.
Ng, voting AGAINST the first set and FOR the second set of proposals,
commented that the Case explained the controversial history for an extremely
important fossil and a very widely used name. He felt that it made sense that the
Commission should now fix the author (as it had always been recognised) and select
a neotype that had been the basis of what the name was. He added that he felt it
might not be the best approach in a legal framework, but it was the right thing to do
for nomenclatural stability nevertheless.
Van Tol, voting AGAINST the original set of proposals and FOR the modified set
of proposals, said that incomplete type specimens did not usually hamper progress in
taxonomy. In most groups consensus was reached on the identity of the nominal taxa
based on the opinion of experts after studying type material or descriptions.
Apparently, students of fossil birds preferred a better preserved specimen for the
nominal taxon Archaeopteryx lithographica, while the proposed neotype had been
considered the type for many years. Although strictly there was no reason for action
by the Commission, the modified proposal actually preserved present practice.
Voting AGAINST both sets of proposals, Kojima commented that the proposal
did not mention explicitly why the stability or universality of Archaeopteryx
lithographica were threatened. Even if the existing name-bearing type (feather
impression) could not determine the taxonomic identity of Archaeopteryx litho-
graphica, as mentioned in paragraph 8, neither its stability nor universality were
threatened.
Original reference
The following is the original reference to the name amended on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
lithographica, Archaeopteryx, von Meyer, 1861, Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie,
Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde, 1861(6): 679.
234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
OPINION 2284 (Case 3499)
Anthochaera Vigors & Horsfield, 1827 and Philesturnus Geoftroy
Saint-Hilaire, 1832 (Aves): usage conserved by suppression of the
generic name Creadion Vieillot, 1816
Abstract. The Commission has conserved the generic names Anthochaera Vigors &
Horsfield, 1827 and Philesturnus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1832 for Australian wattled
honeyeaters (MELIPHAGIDAE) and the New Zealand saddleback (CALLAEIDAE) by
suppression of the generic name Creadion Vieillot, 1816.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CALLAEIDAE; MELIPHAGIDAE; Creadion; Antho-
chaera; Philesturnus; saddleback; wattled honeyeaters; Australasia.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the generic name Creadion
Vieillot, 1816 is suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not
for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:
(a) Anthochaera Vigors & Horsfield, 1827 (gender: feminine), type species by
subsequent designation by G.R. Gray (1840) Corvus paradoxus Daudin,
1800;
(b) Philesturnus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1832 (gender: masculine), type species
by monotypy Sturnus carunculatus Gmelin, 1789.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) paradoxus Daudin, 1800, as published in the binomen Corvus paradoxus
(specific name of the type species of Anthochaera Vigors & Horsfield,
lle PAIP
(b) carunculatus Gmelin, 1789, as published in the binomen Sturnus caruncu-
latus (specific name of the type species of Philesturnus Geoffroy Saint-
Hilaire, 1832).
(4) The name Creadion Vieillot, 1816, as suppressed in (1) above is hereby placed
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3499
An application to conserve the generic names Anthochaera Vigors & Horsfield, 1827
and Philesturnus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1832 for Australian wattled honeyeaters
(MELIPHAGIDAE) and the New Zealand saddleback (CALLAEIDAE) by suppression of the
generic name Creadion Vieillot, 1816, was received from Walter J. Bock (Columbia
University, New York, NY, U.S.A.), Richard Schodde (Australian Biological
Resources Study, Canberra, Australia) and Ricardo L. Palma (Museum of New
Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Wellington, New Zealand) on 24 July 2009. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 66: 332-339 (December 2009). The
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 235
title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website.
Comments on this case were published in BZN 67: 93-94 and 179-181.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 March 2011 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 66: 336. At the close of the voting period on | June 2011
the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 24: Ballerio, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday,
Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Papp,
Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou.
Negative votes — 1: Bogutskaya.
Alonso-Zarazaga, Lim and Pyle were on leave of absence.
Voting FOR, Bouchet commented that, although it had no effect on the action
taken or his vote, he wished to record his full agreement with Bock et al. (contra
Gregory & David) regarding the type species fixation for Creadion.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes
by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Anthochaera Vigors & Horsfield, 1827, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 15: 320.
carunculatus, Sturnus, Gmelin, 1789, Systema Naturae, Lipsiae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, Dt. 2. Pp. B03:
Creadion Vieillot, 1816, Analyse d’une nouvelle ornithologie élémentaire. Déterville, Paris, p. 34.
paradoxus, Corvus, Daudin, 1800, Traité élémentaire et complet d’ornithologie, ou histoire
naturelle des oiseaux, vol. 2. 473 pp., pls. 9-27. Bertrandet, Paris, p. 246, pl. 16.
Philesturnus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1832, Nouvelles Annales du Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle,
1: 390.
236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
OPINION 2285 (Case 3474)
Aplonis Gould, 1836 (Aves; STURNIDAE): spelling conserved
Abstract. The Commission has ruled to conserve the widely accepted spelling Aplonis
Gould, 18 October 1836 for the Indo-Australasian glossy starlings (STURNIDAE) by
suppression of the prior but little-used spelling Aplornis Gould, [1 or 3 October] 1836.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; STURNIDAE; Aplonis; Aplornis; Aplonis
marginata; glossy starlings; Indo-Australasia.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the generic name Aplornis Gould, [1
or 3 October] 1836 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Aplonis Gould, 18 October 1836 (gender: feminine), type species by
subsequent designation Aplonis marginata Gould, 1836, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name marginata Gould, 1836, as published in the binomen Aplonis
marginata (specific name of the type species of Ap/onis Gould, 1836), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The name Aplornis Gould, [1 or 3 October] 1836, as suppressed in (1) above,
is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology.
History of Case 3474
An application to conserve the widely accepted spelling Aplonis Gould, 18 October
1836 for the Indo-Australasian glossy starlings (STURNIDAE) by suppression of the
prior but little-used spelling Aplornis Gould, [1 or 3 October] 1836 was received from
Richard Schodde (Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra City, Australia)
and Walter J. Bock (Columbia University, New York, NY, U.S.A.) on 6 August 2008.
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 66: 56-63 (March 2009). The
title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website.
No comments on this case were received.
Decision of the Commission
On 2 March 2010 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 66: 59. At the close of the voting period on | June 2010
the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 25: Alonso-Zarazaga, Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers,
Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Lim,
Minelli, Ng, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega and Zhou.
Negative votes — 1: Pape.
Pyle and Zhang were on leave of absence.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011 237
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes
by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Aplonis Gould, 18 October 1836, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1836: 73.
Aplornis Gould, [1 or 3 October] 1836, The Analyst, 17: 152.
marginata, Aplonis, Gould, 1836, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1836: 73.
238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(3) September 2011
Information and Instructions for Authors
The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications; other authors
should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the
format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance
with these guidelines may be returned. For more detailed instructions see http://
iczn.org/content/instructions-authors.
General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the
Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this
appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases
should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the
Commission will treat applications on this basis. Applicants should discuss their
cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so that they
are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists.
Text. Formatted with double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs
setting out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal
proposals. Text references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g.
‘Daudin (1800, p. 49) described ...’. If the plenary power of the Commission is
sought, this necessity should be clearly explained (with reference to the relevant
Article of the Code).
References. These should give all authors of a publication. Where possible, ten or
more reasonably recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names
that are to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals
should be in full and in italics; number of volumes, parts, etc. should be in Arabic
figures, separated by a colon from the page numbers. Book titles should be in italics
and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication.
Submission of application: Applications should be submitted electronically prefer-
ably by email (within the message or as an attachment) to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’. When
submitted by post, one copy should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. The typescript should be accompanied by
a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format (disks and attachments to be in
Word, rtf or ASCII text). It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied
by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible.
The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the
formulation of an application.
Illustrations
If a neotype designation is requested it is strongly advisable to submit an
appropriate illustation in TIFF format of sufficiently high resolution for printing.
Hardcopy figures will be accepted, at discretion of the Editor. It is desirable to
illustrate both specimen and its label, with a scale bar. Furthermore, we are willing
to consider illustrations of the organisms under discussion contributed simply to add
visual interest to the applications. Line drawings should be high-resolution TIFFs at
600-1200 dpi; photographs may be 300-400 dpi. If the files are difficult to send
electronically, LZW compression of TIFF files allows recovery of original file quality.
Please note that JPG format often introduces artefacts in printing, thus we are not
able to accept JPGs.
Contents — continued
On Stegosaurus Marsh, 1877 (Dinosauria, Ornithischia): proposed replacement of
the type species with Stegosaurus stenops Marsh, 1887 ee ee S.C.R.
Maidment; K. Carpenter; V. Demirjian ; Mig gen
Rulings of the Commission
OPINION 2277 (Case 3504). Onthophagus rugulosus Harold, 1886 (Coieoptera:
SCARABAEIDAE): Specific name conserved .
OPINION 2278 (Case 3489). Chrysomela elongata Suiftian, 185 1 Geurtendy Deaton
elongata; Insecta, Coleoptera): name conserved ;
OPINION 2279 (Case 3488). Papilio danae Fabricius, 1775 lournente plots domes:
Insecta, Lepidoptera, PIERIDAE): usage conserved by the suppression of Papilio
danae Hufnagel, 1766
OPINION 2280 (Case 3436). Psseneeaaiy Koahw. 1390 rasa. Humcioniete,
Symphyta): generic name given precedence over Epitactus Forster, 1854.
OPINION 2281 (Case 3507). Phylloporina Ulrich in Foerste, 1887 brine:
Fenestrata, Phylloporinina): Retepora trentonensis Nicholson, 1875 designated as
the type species.
OPINION 2282 (Case 3502). Cokes nines ie. 1834 (currently Bevicions
nummifer; Reptilia, Serpentes): specific name conserved . . .
OPINION 2283 (Case 3390). Archaeopteryx lithographica von Mover, 1861 (awisy.
conservation of usage by designation of a neotype . . .
OPINION 2284 (Case 3499). Anthochaera Vigors & Horsfield, 1827 and Pi arinain:
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1832 (Aves): usage conserved by suppression of the generic
name Creadion Vieillot, 1816
OPINION 2285 pe ites eri Cid: 1836 (aves STURMIDAB) spelling
conserved .
Information and Instructions for Authors
213
218
220
UES
224
226
228
230
234
236
238
eens
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES
iin
3 908
ae
Bacon
ae
ue
eS
So
a
AERO
‘ —
ei
ae
ae
Oe
aa
Bae ee
Ss
Buea eRe NonueS
Bean
sane Ra Roos UD ROR Ea RU EREG aS
SRN oe
OS
SEU ANN
ee
ae
ee
BOR
RRNSU ERIN
RRR
RU
as
Suan
RS
es
Lonth
ae
SR
may
Law ‘ ses : ee : hatin : ee ee ee
g A r i oui Vi i i 3 a a | y : 4 RRS % x : eae
Hero i i i if ou i i i i)
OS
Se
_ Volume 68, Part 4,20 December 2011, pp. 239-334 : ISSN 0007-5167
he Bulletin of
4g400logical Nomenclature
The Official Periodical
of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature
2
¥.
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a registered charity
(no. 211944) based in the U.K. The annual subscription for 2012 is £210 or US$360 or €295,
postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £105 or
US$180 or €145. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to:
The Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. +44 207 942 5653; e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk)
Electronic communication is preferred. Manuscripts sent by post should include a digital
copy of the text and figures.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Officers
President Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands)
Vice-President Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S.A.)
Executive Secretary Dr E. Michel (U.K.)
Councillors indicated below with *
Members
Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga* Prof. S. Lim (Malaysia; Parasitology)
(Spain; Coleoptera) Prof. A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda)
Dr A. Ballerio (/taly; Coleoptera) Prof. P. K. L. Ng (Singapore;
Dr N. G. Bogutskaya (Russia; Ichthyology) Crustacea, Ichthyology)
Prof. P. Bouchet* (France; Mollusca) Dr T. Pape (Denmark; Diptera)
Prof. D. J. Brothers Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera)
(South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof. D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista)
Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S.A.; Cnidaria) Dr R. Pyle* (U.S.A.; Ichthyology)
Dr M. J. Grygier (Japan; Crustacea) Dr G. Rosenberg* (U.S.A.; Mollusca)
Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof. P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera)
Dr M. S. Harvey (Australia; Arachnida) Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata)
Prof. J. Kojima (Japan; Hymenoptera) Dr J. E. Winston (U.S.A.; Bryozoa)
Dr M. Kottelat (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr D. Yanega (U.S. A.; Entomology)
Dr F.-T. Krell (U.S.A.; Coleoptera) Dr Z.-Q. Zhang (New Zealand, Acari)
Dr S. O. Kullander (Sweden; Ichthyology) Prof. H. Zhou (China; Coleoptera)
Prof. Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera)
Secretariat
Dr E. Michel (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor-in-Chief)
Dr S. Nikolaeva (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Editor)
S. Tracey (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Administrator)
N. Dale-Skey Papilloud M.Sc. (Bulletin Zoologist)
E. W. Baker (Webmaster and Development Officer)
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
Dr M. Dixon (Chairman)
C. Laws (Treasurer and Managing Director)
Abstracts of Applications and Opinions, Comments in full and details of the names published
in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology are posted on the
Commission’s website (http://iczn.org)
Cover image: Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa (Linnaeus, 1758), the European mole cricket (Latin:
gryllus — cricket, talpa — mole, from its fossorial limbs, fine hairs and subterranean habit).
Widespread in the Western Palaearctic region and introduced into parts of the U.S.A. this
insect can be an agricultural pest in significant numbers, although in the U.K. it is extremely
rare and subject to a U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan (report sightings to g.beccaloni@
nhm.ac.uk). Detail from plate 456 of British Entomology: Original Drawings, vol. 10, by John
Curtis (1862) (© Natural History Museum, London).
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2011
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 239
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 68, part 4 (pp. 239-334) 20 December 2011
Notices
(1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission
should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the
front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the
Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two
page form in each volume and available online (at http://iczn.org/content/guidelines-
case-preparation) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors
for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as
opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applica-
tions and, as far as it can, check the main nomenclatural references in applications.
Correspondence should be sent by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible.
(2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been
published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be
submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or
against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible.
Comments may be edited (see instructions for submission of comments at
http://iczn.org/content/instructions-comments).
(3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the
Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the
Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more
about the list at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list.
(4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on
nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal
with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes
should be sent to the Executive Secretary.
New applications to the Commission
The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the
Bulletin (volume 68, part 3, 30 September 2011) went to press. Under Article 82 of
the Code, the existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the
Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published.
CASE 3576: Oscinella Becker, 1909 (Insecta, Diptera, CHLOROPIDAE): proposed
conservation by giving it precedence over Melanochaeta Bezzi, 1906 and Pachy-
chaetina Hendel, 1907. M. von Tschirnhaus & E.P. Nartshuk.
CASE 3577: ELATERIDAE Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence
Over CEBRIONIDAE Latreille, 1802. P.J. Johnson.
CASE 3578: Copromyza fenestralis Fallén, 1820 (currently Pteremis fenestralis;
Insecta, Diptera, SPHAEROCERIDAE): proposed conservation of usage by suppression of
syntypes and designation of neotype. J. Rohacek.
GMT HSON/4g
JAN 29 Z2U1Z
J iprmacnica “J
240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
CASE 3579: Scarabaeus fimetarius Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
setting aside of the lectotype and designation of a neotype. R.B. Angus, C.J. Wilson
& F.-T. Krell.
William David Lindsay Ride (1926-2011) — Commissioner
1963-2001, Chairman of the Editorial Committees for the 3rd
and 4th Editions of the Code, President of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 1973-1977 &
1983-1989
W.D.L. Ride, a member of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature between 1963 and 2001, died in
Australia on 6 November 2011. He served as President of the
Commission from 1973 to 1977 and again from 1983 to 1989.
His wide experience of public administration is credited by
Melville (1995) as providing the successful bridge for the Commission to become a
member of the IUBS (International Union of Biological Sciences) which has
delegated the authority for the Commission as a representative international
scientific body after the demise of the Congress of Zoology in 1972. He was further
recognised for his considerable experience in drafting policy, which set the
foundations for his chairmanship of the Editorial Committees for both the third
and fourth editions of the Code. David Ride contributed significantly to nomen-
clature, with his extensive service to the Commission, his publications of papers on
the topic and guidance of the Commission through times of major transition over
several decades.
David Ride was a mammalogist and palaeontologist who had studied at the
renowned Oxford school in vertebrate anatomy under E.S Goodrich. He published
on the native mammals of Australia, and co-authored an index to the genera and
species of fossil mammals described from Australia and New Guinea. He edited
volumes on biological nomenclature and on endangered species in Australia.
His professional career included extensive influence in Australian museums and
academics. He became Director of the Western Australian Museum, Perth in 1957,
at the same time he held the position of Reader in Zoology at the University of
Western Australia. Jose I. dos R. Furtado, now a senior member of the International
Trust for Zoological Nomenclature (ITZN), was an undergraduate at the University
of Western Australia when Ride first took up his positions in Perth, and remembers
Professor Ride as an inspiring teacher of vertebrate biology who brought evolution-
ary biology to life by integrating structure with function.
Professor Ride worked for the Australian Biological Resources Study, located
within the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO),
in Canberra from 1974 tol980, and was Director in 1975. He also served as the Head
of the School of Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced Education from
1982-87, and was appointed Principal of the College in 1987. Following his
retirement, he became a Visiting Fellow at the Australian National at A until
2002. Professor Ride was made a Member of the Order of Australia, an Avustralian
order of chivalry, in 1984.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 241
David Ride’s contributions to zoological nomenclature were monumental and live
on in the legacy of the Code. The Commissioners and Members of the Trust extend
sincere condolences to his family and friends.
Melville, R.V. 1995. Towards stability in the names of animals: A history of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995. 92 pp. ITZN, London.
Professor Frank A. Bisby (1945-2011), Director
Catalogue of Life and Species 2000
Frank A. Bisby was the initiator and director of
the Catalogue of Life and Species 2000, and
several other major biodiversity informatics pro-
jects that were closely linked with the work of the
ICZN. He died unexpectedly on 25 October, the
day after the announcement of the release of the
2011 edition of the Catalogue of Life (CoL). This
dynamic database lists 1,370,276 species (with
‘accepted names’ and limited synonymies) sourced from 101 databases that are
validated by taxonomic specialists. It is widely seen as the most complete taxonomic
e-infrastructure project for living organisms today. Frank was keen on collaboration
with the ICZN and worked to ensure that the nomenclatural authority that will be
available through ZooBank is linked with the taxon concepts presented in CoL.
Frank Bisby was also Professor of Botany at Reading University, U.K. with a
speciality in legumes. He was an inspirational teacher, who was particularly popular
for his field courses. He had moved to Reading from a faculty position at
Southampton University after finishing his PhD at Oxford.
Frank Bisby was a leader with vision, bringing together teams of people to
contribute skills in a global endeavour of cataloguing the world’s species. His
contributions were enormous and he will be missed.
Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st
century and beyond
Charles Davies Sherborn provided the bibliographic
foundation for current zoological nomenclature with
his magnum opus Jndex Animalium. In the 43 years he
spent working on this extraordinary resource, he
anchored our understanding of animal diversity
through the published scientific record. No work has
equalled it since and it is still in current, and critical,
use.
Until now, Sherborn’s contribution has been rec-
ognised and relied upon by professional taxonomists
worldwide but he has escaped the celebration of his
accomplishment that is his due. This changed on
Friday, 28 October 2011, with a symposium in his
honour in the 150th year of his birth organised by the
242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
ICZN, in collaboration with the Society for the History of Natural History at the
Natural History Museum (NHM), London. The full day meeting included an
international panel of experts on bibliography and biodiversity bioinformatics who
linked a view of the past with an active debate on the future of the related fields.
The symposium was structured with an introduction to Sherborn as a man,
scientist and bibliographer, then provided historical context for taxonomic indexing
from the 19'" century to today. Current tools and innovations were presented. The
final sessions tackled the future of biological nomenclature, including shifting
publishing modes and changing sociology of science in taxonomy. There were fifteen
talks from distinguished speakers from around the world, and ten posters, including
an exhibition of ‘Sherborniana’, or artefacts from Sherborn’s tenure at the NHM.
The event was very well attended, with an audience of over 120 people present
throughout most of the day. As the composition of the audience changed somewhat
throughout the day, the number of people celebrating Sherborn was impressive.
The symposium was dedicated to Professor Frank Bisby, whose untimely death a
few days earlier had shocked and saddened the biodiversity informatics community.
Frank had initiated and directed Species 2000 and the Catalogue of Life, ambitious
global taxonomy projects that build on the foundation laid by Sherborn’s indexes.
The global and temporal reach of this event is being extended through podcasts of
all the talks, posters and discussion, including slides and poster downloads, and
videos of all the talks available through this site: iczn.org/sherborn and
http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/201 1/10/anchoring-biodiversity-information-from-
sherborn-to-the-21st-century-and-beyond/.
The event was organised and sponsored by the ICZN (Int'l Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature) and the Society for the History of Natural History, with
significant sponsorship support from the Linnean Society, BHL-Europe (Biodiversity
Heritage Library-Europe), Pensoft Publishers (ZooKeys), The NHM — Natural
History Museum, and ViBRANT -— Virtual Biodiversity.
The inaugural plenary talk was given by Neal Evenhuis, who provided personal
and highly sympathetic insights into the incredible drive and bibliographic skills
Sherborn had to harness in his effort to make an essentially universal index to all
animal names. Evenhuis served as a Commissioner and President of the ICZN for
many years, and is a self-described ‘index-aholic’ whose wit made Sherborn’s labours
seem a natural endeavour, at least for those of a Herculean mindset. Gordon McOuat
provided a sparkling overview of the evolution of nomenclatural codes and
controversies in the decades around Sherborn, bringing the history of science to life.
Edward Dickinson presented a detailed scrutiny of Sherborn and Richmond’s
indexes in ornithology, a taxonomic best-case that illuminates problems that need
attention in the larger whole of the corpus. Chris Thompson explained how research
on the important (and beautiful!) megadiverse insect group Diptera has benefited
from building an outstanding bibliographic index based on Sherborn’s original work,
with modern tools and additions providing a resource of greater utility than even
Sherborn could have imagined. Suzanne Pilsk, with extraordinary zing, described
how the Smithsonian libraries have made Sherborn’s Index Animalium accessible
online and how this is the dawn of a new age for bibliographic information access as
we go from paper to bytes. This was followed by a companion talk from Nigel
Robinson, who showed how Zoological Record’s Index of Organism Names
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 243
integrated Index Animalium in collaboration with the Smithsonian libraries, creating
a continuously updated bibliographic source for published names.
The session covering current practice in bringing information into the modern age
began with Chris Lyal’s pertinent observations on limitations of digitizing objects
and information. Lyal underscored our current tendency to build forward from the
past, using e-charged traditional methods with digital analogues of paper, rather than
developing new tools that make the most of cybertechnology and assessment of
future needs and opportunities. Henning Scholz gave a thorough overview of the
monumental resource that the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) has become,
increasing the efficiency of access to early published literature and increasing archival
stability for historical works. David Remsen showed how GBIF’s (the Global
Biodiversity Information Facility) 300 million records are linked through nomen-
clatural and taxonomic authority files, thus is an expansion on Sherborn’s dream. In
a tectonic talk presenting results of ICZN committee deliberation, Daphne Fautin,
with Miguel Alonso-Zarazaga, detailed the requirements and opportunities for Lists
of Available Names (LANs) to proceed through ICZN Article 79 to stabilise large
taxonomic sections of nomenclature at once. Although it is not a light task to
implement a LAN, a result is that ‘nomenclatural archaeology’ will find the footing
pulled out from under it, thus increasing stability and transparency in scientific
names of animals.
In the final session Chris Freeland showed how museums and libraries are
enhancing educational outreach, scholarly dissemination and archiving by pursuing
a focused programme to make information electronic. Despite a volatile technology
landscape, progress in scanning prints, manuscripts and specimens has been prodi-
gious and benefits are irrefutable. Sandra Knapp got back to the source, suggesting
that evolution or revolution is necessary to change the way taxonomists work and
how we compile the ‘definitive references’. Knapp emphasised that modern tools
allow, indeed require, the modern equivalent of the monograph to be broader and
richer in data content and more regularly updated, and that the role of the
taxonomist must become as a collaborative partner, not sole executer, in these works.
Lyubomir Penev followed this with a very practical glimpse of what revolutionary
e-tools look like, presenting the new work flow and publishing mechanism developed
by the journal ZooKeys. He pointed out that technical tools can radically change
the landscape for the persistent, intractable controversies of registration and
e-publication across all biological nomenclature. Rod Page took no prisoners with his
manifesto for a truly ‘open taxonomy’. His criticism that taxonomy today is only
marginally open, not really digital and not notably linked was followed by
suggestions of ways this could change with concerted focus and shared vision from
the taxonomic and bibliographic community.
The wrap-up plenary by Richard Pyle made a convincing case that, even in this
time of major technological improvements across taxonomic science, the most
revolutionary change is the means by which we manage and communicate infor-
mation to the world. Pyle showed how a multitude of major taxonomic resources are
all linked through taxonomy and nomenclature. The granddaddy of all the taxonomy
projects, where it all comes home, is the GNA (Global Names Architecture), which
will be the dynamic index to interconnect and streamline the entire taxonomic
enterprise. Finally, a panel discussion was held under the banner ‘What Would
244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
ss
Fig. 1. Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond (1) Graham
Higley, Head of NHM Libraries & Archives and BHL Chair, dedicates the symposium to Professor Frank
Bisby, whose untimely death a few days before shocked the biodiversity informatics community; (2) Neal
Evenhuis presents an insightful plenary on the mind of an indexer, with a cartoon drawn by Sherborn in
the background showing his exhaustion at the end of his Herculean task; (3) Daphne Fautin and Miguel
Alonso-Zarazaga present the results of ICZN Committee deliberation on Lists of Available Names
(LANs, Article 79) with a graphic indicating the tension between taxonomic and purely nomenclatural
inclusiveness of LANs; (4) Suzanne Pilsk describes the bibliographic and informatics challenges of getting
Sherborn’s Index Animalium online; (5) Chris Freeland puts Sherborn in his crystal ball for the future of
biodiversity publishing; (6) Richard Pyle raises a fist in support of Global Names Architecture, showing
how taxonomy and names are the nexus for all biodiversity information in his closing plenary talk; (7)
Chris Thompson fires another fierce and insightful question; (8) the full panel of speakers under the
heading WWSD? What would Sherborn Do? From left to right: Suzanne Pilsk, Chris Lyal, Henning Scholz,
Edward Dickinson, Neil Evenhuis, Daphne Fautin, Sandy Knapp, Lyubomir Penev, Rod Page, Chris
Thompson, Chris Freeland, Gordon McOuat, (behind podium Richard Pyle, David Remsen).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 245
Sherborn Do? with all the speakers taking questions from the audience. This
provided a lively debate on the importance of names, the role of publishing and the
future for scientific bibliography. It was agreed that we have powerful new tools at
our disposal, but the major challenge for the future is the required sociological shifts
in how taxonomists work and how information is presented. Sherborn would have
been proud.
Introduction to the Programme, Dedication to Frank Bisby
Ellinor Michel (ICZN) & Graham Higley (BHL & NHM Libraries)
Session 1: History of Taxonomic Literature, Indexing and Traditional Taxonomic
Nomenclature
Opening Keynote: SHNH Annual Ramsbottom Lecture Neal Evenhuis (Bishop Museum):
Sherborn: Work history and impact of bibliography, dating and zoological informatics
Gordon McOuat (University of King’s College, Halifax): Sherborn’s context: Cataloguing
nature
Edward Dickinson (Aves Press): Reinforcing the foundations: Filling in the bibliographic gaps in
the historical legacy
F. Christian Thompson (Smithsonian) & Thomas Pape (Copenhagen): Systema Dipterorum:
Sherborn’s critical influence in getting information control over a megadiverse group
Smithsonian Institution Libraries (Suzanne Pilsk, Martin Kalfatovic & Joel Richard):
Unlocking the Index Animalium: From paper slips to bytes and bits
Nigel Robinson (Zoological Record) Sherborn’s Index Animalium integration into ION: access
to all
Session 2: Current Taxonomic Practices
Chris Lyal (NHM): Digitising legacy taxonomic literature: processes, products and using the
output
Henning Scholz (Museum fiir Naturkunde Berlin): BHL-Europe. Tools and Services for Legacy
Taxonomic Literature
David Remsen (GBIF): Biodiversity Informatics: GBIF’s role in linking information through
scientific names
Daphne Fautin (Univ. Kansas/ICZN) & Miguel Alonso-Zarazaga (MNCN-CSIC/ICZN):
LANs: Lists of Available Names — a new generation for stable taxonomic names in zoology?
Session 3: Future of Biological Nomenclature
Chris Freeland (Missouri Botanical Garden): Preserving digitized taxonomic data: problems
and solutions for print, manuscript and specimen data
Sandra Knapp (NHM/IAPT/ITZN): New workflows for describing and naming organisms
Lyubomir Penev (Pensoft Publishers): ZooKeys: Streamlining the registration-to-publication
pipeline
Rod Page (University of Glasgow): Towards an open taxonomy
Closing Keynote and wrap-up plenary discussion. Richard Pyle (Bishop Museum): Towards a
Global Names Architecture: The future of indexing scientific names
246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
ICZN meeting on electronic publication
A public meeting to discuss the proposed amendment on electronic (e-) publication
was held following the Sherborn symposium on Saturday 29 October, 2011 in the
Natural History Museum, London. Approximately 30 taxonomists, librarians and
publishers attended, including eight current Commissioners (Alonso-Zarazaga,
Bogutskaya, Fautin, Krell, Pape, Rosenberg, van Tol, Winston) and one ex-
Commissioner and member of the 4th Code Editorial Committee (Thompson).
Authors of the most strongly argued published Comments on e-publication, both pro
and con, were present. The meeting was chaired by Ellinor Michel, ICZN Executive
Secretary and Gary Rosenberg, Chair of the 5th Code Editorial Committee. The
meeting began with a presentation from Sandra Knapp, Chair of the Botanical
Nomenclature Committee and ITZN Member (Trustee), on how e-publication was
debated and voted through in the Botanical Congress in Melbourne in July of this
year. Details of how e-publication should or should not be implemented in zoology
were then discussed vigorously by all attending until a break after three hours. The
discussion was wide-ranging and passionate. On reconvening, the group maintained
its breadth of representation though with numbers slightly reduced. After a short
period at the start of the meeting that might be described informally as a bun fight,
discussion was respectful and very constructive. A focused set of questions for the
Commission resulted.
Straw votes were taken on summary statements from the discussion, with the
following results:
Should registration in an official register and e-publication be mandatorily
coupled (with the proviso that there is a working registration mechanism, such as
ZooBank)?
YES: 13, NO: 8, ABSTAIN: 3
Is this the time to recognise e-publication for nomenclatural acts? (Or stated in
other words, whatever the mechanism, are we in favour of working towards a way to
allow e-publication?)
YES: 23, NO: 1, ABSTAIN: 1
Should we aim for Jan 2012 as the start date for allowing e-publication regardless
of the status of registration (with a retroactive implementation if the e-publication
amendment passes due to the required voting period)?
YES: 20, NO: 1, ABSTAIN: 0
The group made several suggestions of items for the Commission to consider in
revising the amendment for e-publication in preparation for a vote:
(1) Is it consistent with the principles of the amendment to have that the proposed
changes in Article 8 & 9 be voted on separately from those in Article 10? The
Commission was requested to address this as a purely procedural question. The
content of Articles 8 and 9 (on publishing and archiving) was felt to be far less
problematic than that of 10 (on registration), especially as ZooBank remains an
unproven, though promising, infrastructure of scale.
(2) Is it consistent with the principles of the amendment to have staggered start
dates, with a later start date for registration than for e-publication? The group agreed
that it should be left open for the Commission to decide when registration is ready,
and this should be independent of e-publication for the time being.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 247
(3) Mechanisms for how and when to move registration forward need to be
addressed as a matter of priority.
(4) Should having an ISBN or ISSN be added as a requirement for the availability
of an electronic work (as done in Botany)?
(5) The proposals drafted for the e-publication discussion by the botanists were
considered to be well-thought out in general (Chapman, A.D., Turland, N.J. &
Watson, M.F. 2010. Report of the Special Committee on Electronic Publication.
Taxon, 59(6): 1853-1862) and should be considered in detail by the ICZN Commis-
sioners.
(6) Recommendation 8C was felt to be problematic in two ways: 1) it combines two
logically separate recommendations; and 2) the first of these ‘Jdeally names and
nomenclatural acts published in electronic works should also be published simul-
taneously on paper.’ conveys that electronic publication is ‘second class’, and also will
result in the creation of two competing simultaneous versions, from which it will be
difficult to choose a single version of record. One solution would be just to delete the
first half so that it reads:
Recommendation 8C. Electronic works. Electronic works should be structured to
allow automated indexing and data extraction.
248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
Financial Report for the year 2010
The main work of the Commission during the year was on applications from
zoologists in 24 countries to resolve problems of zoological nomenclature. These were
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, together with Opinions
(rulings) made by the Commission on other cases. Further applications were under
consideration. Advice was given by the Commission’s Secretariat in response to a
large number of enquiries on matters of nomenclature from zoologists worldwide.
Total income received by the Trust consisted of £32,835 for all publications
produced by the Commission, £50,586 from appeal and general donations, £2,774 in
bank interest and investment income, and £15,542 capital gain on the sale of
investments and £6,988 from special events and lecture fees bringing the total income
for the year to £108,725.
Expenditure in 2010 was £99,917 on salaries and fees of the Secretariat of the
Commission, £2,918 on appeal expenditure and ZooBank travel, £8,206 for printing
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and for the distribution of all publications,
and £972 for office expenses and depreciation of office equipment, bringing the total
expenditure to £112,013.
The Secretariat of the Commission was again housed in the Natural History
Museum, London, whom we thank for their continuing support. The Trust wishes to
express its thanks to all the donors listed below who have contributed to the
continuation of its work during the year for the international zoological and
palaeontological community.
Donations and grants were received from:
American Association of Zoological Nomenclature
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Coleopterists’ Society
The Earl of Cranbrook
Entomological Society of America
Institute Royale des Sciences Naturales de Belgique, Brussels
Japanese Society of Systematic Zoology
Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab
Peter Luff
Malacological Society of London
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris
NCB Naturalis, the Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity, Leiden
Pan-European Species-directories Infrastructure (PEST)
Senckenberg Gesellschaft fiir Naturforschung, Frankfurt
University of Oslo
University of Reading (4D4Life)
Peter T. Warren
Baroness Young of Old Scone
Donors to the marathon run by Justin Warhurst on behalf of the ICZN
C. Laws, Secretary and Managing Director
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
249
INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED
31 DECEMBER 2010
Income
SALE OF PUBLICATIONS
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature £32,250
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 456
Official Lists and Indexes 100
Centenary History 20
32,835
GRANTS AND DONATIONS
INTEREST RECEIVED
INVESTMENT INCOME
CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF INVESTMENTS
SPECIAL EVENTS
DECLUREAFEERS
Expenditure
SALARIES, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND FEES
OFFICE EXPENSES
PRINTING OF BULLETIN AND DISTRIBUTION OF
PUBLICATIONS
APPEAL EXPENDITURE INCLUDING TRAVEL
DEFICIT FOR THE YEAR CARRIED TO BALANCE
i eb la
50,586
Ms
2,709
15,542
6,638
350
108,725
ba Bas le
972
8,206
2,918
112,013
(£3,288)
250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
Case 3567
Bulimus lineatus Bruguiére, 1789 (Gastropoda, UROCOPTIDAE; currently
Macroceramus lineatus) and Bulimus lineatus Draparnaud, 1801
(Gastropoda, ACICULIDAE; currently Acicula lineata): proposed
conservation of specific names
Francisco W. Welter-Schultes
Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Strasse 28, 37073 Gottingen, Germany
(e-mail: fwelter@gwdg.de)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.5, 23.10, 57.2.2 and 81
of the Code, is to conserve two specific gastropod names Bulimus lineatus Bruguiere,
1789 (Pulmonata: UROCOPTIDAE, currently Macroceramus lineatus, from Haiti) and
Bulimus lineatus Draparnaud, 1801 (currently Acicula lineata, Caenogastropoda:
ACICULIDAE, from central Europe) by ruling under the plenary power to disregard
their primary homonymy.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; UROCOPTIDAE; ACICULIDAE; Macro-
ceramus lineatus; Acicula lineata; caenogastropods; stylommatophoran pulmonate
snails; Europe; Haiti.
1. Bulimus lineatus Bruguiére, 1789 (in Bruguiére, 1792, p. 323; Gastropoda,
UROCOPTIDAE, currently Macroceramus lineatus, from Haiti) and Bulimus lineatus
Draparnaud, 1801 (p. 67; Gastropoda, ACICULIDAE, currently Acicula lineata, from
Europe) are primary homonyms (Articles 53.3, 57.2 of the Code). The identities of
both nominal taxa are not disputed.
2. Both names are currently used for ‘valid’ species. Acicula lineata is a frequent
and important species from Europe, where it is distributed from southern France to
southern Germany and eastern Austria (Boeters et al., 1989, p. 60, Falkner et al.,
2002, p. 69). It is the type species of Acicula Hartmann, 1821 (ACICULIDAE).
Macroceramus lineatus is a common species in Haiti (Pilsbry, 1904, p. 122, Wetherbee
& Clench, 1984, p. 10, Richardson, 1991, p. 145).
3. These two species have not been considered as congeneric after 1899. They
belong to different taxonomic groups: Acicu/a Hartmann, 1821 is a caenogastropod,
while Macroceramus Guilding, 1828, a stylommatophoran pulmonate snail. These
genera live in different regions without overlap: Macroceramus in Mexico, Central
America and the Caribbean, Acicula in Europe, the Caucasian region and northern
Africa.
4. Because Acicula lineata was considered a very important species, Falkner et al.
(2002, p. 69) intended to fix Bulimus lineatus Bruguiére, 1789 as a nomen oblitum
under Article 23.9.2, and listed the 25 references for Acicula lineata as required by
Article 23.9.1.2. The authors argued that Bulimus lineatus Bruguiére, 1789 had not
been used since 1899, but overlooked the fact that the name had been used by Pilsbry
(1904, p. 122) and subsequent authors in the genus Macroceramus. Terrestrial
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 251
gastropod species from Haiti are much more rarely mentioned in the recent literature
and internet resources than species from central Europe, which explains why its usage
was not detected in 2002.
5. Since the action of Falkner et al. (2002) was taken in error, the case has to be
referred to the Commission under Article 23.10, and it is proposed to conserve the
names under Article 23.9.5 of the Code.
6. Boeters et al. (1989, p. 60) argued that Draparnaud (1805, p. 57) established
Auricula lineata as a new species, and that the 1801 name could be suppressed to
avoid homonymy with Bulimus lineatus Bruguiére, 1789. However Draparnaud
(1805) had expressly used the 1801 name, so this option would have created
confusion in Europe and was rejected by subsequent authors (Falkner et al., 2002).
7. It is proposed to disregard the primary homonymy and regard both names as
available. An alternative solution would be to suppress the Haitian name, because the
European name has been used more frequently. However, for students and scientists
in Haiti suppression of the Haitian name may result in further confusion.
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that the name /ineatus Draparnaud, 1801, as
published in the binomen Bulimus lineatus, is not invalid by reason of being a
junior primary homonym of /ineatus Bruguiére, 1789, as published in the
binomen Bulimus lineatus;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) lineatus Bruguiére, 1789, as published in the binomen Bulimus lineatus;
(b) lineatus Draparnaud, 1801, as published in the binomen Bulimus lineatus,
with the endorsement that is not invalid by reason of being a junior
primary homonym of J/ineatus Bruguiére, 1789, as published in the
binomen Bulimus lineatus, as ruled in (1) above.
Acknowledgements
Iam thankful to C. Audibert, R. Bank, J. Gerber, F. Giusti and I. Richling for their
advice and critically checking the manuscript.
References
Boeters, H.D., Gittenberger, E. & Subai, P. 1989. Die Aciculidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda,
Prosobranchia). Zoologische Verhandelingen, 252: 1-234. (http://www.repository.
naturalis.nl/record/3 17686)
Bruguiére, J.G. 1792. Encyclopédie méthodique. Histoire naturelle des vers. Tome premier.
[ABE-CON]. pp. [1-3], j-xviij [= 1-18], 1-757. Panckoucke, Paris. (http://resolver.sub.uni-
goettingen.de/purl?PPN583853528)
Draparnaud, J.P.R. 1801. Tableau des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France. —
pp. [1-2], 1-116. Montpellier, Paris. (Renaud; Bossange, Masson & Besson).
(http://www. biodiversitylibrary.org/item/47270)
Draparnaud, J.P.R. [1805]. Histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France.
Ouvrage posthume. Avec XIII planches. pp. [1-9], j-viy [= 1-8], 1-134, [Pl. 1-13]
(http://www. biodiversitylibrary.org/item/46572)
Falkner, G., Ripken, T.E.J. & Falkner, M. 2002. Mollusques continentaux de France. Liste de
référence annotée et bibliographie. Collection Patrimoines Naturels, 52. pp. [1-2], 1-350,
[1-3].
252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
Guilding, L. 1828. Observations on the zoology of the Caribean Islands. Zoological Journal,
4: 164-175.
Hartmann, W. 1821. System der Erd- und FluBschnecken der Schweiz. Mitvergleichender
Aufzahlung aller auch in den benachbarten Laindern, Deutschland, Frankreich und Italien
sich vorfindenden Arten. Neue Alpina, 1: 194-268, Taf. I-II [= 1-2]. Winterthur.
Pilsbry, H.A. 1904. Manual of Conchology, structural and systematic. With illustrations of the
species. Second Series: Pulmonata. Vol. XVI [= 16]. Urocoptide, Achatinide. — pp. I-XL
[= 1-40], 1-329, Pl. 1-37 (http://www. biodiversitylibrary.org/item/16305)
Richardson, C.L. 1991. Urocoptidae: Catalog of species. Tryonia, 22: 1 [= 1], 1-245.
Wetherbee, D.K. & Clench, W.J. 1984. Three new species of Macroceramus (Mollusca:
Urocoptidae) from the Dominican Republic. Caribbean Journal of Science, 20 (1/2): 9-12.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 159.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 253
Case 3569
Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789 (LiMAcIDAE) and Limax fasciatus
Nilsson, 1823 (currently Arion fasciatus, ARIONIDAE): proposed
conservation of both specific names (Gastropoda, Stylommatophora)
Ted von Proschwitz
Naturhistoriska Museet, Géteborg, Sweden
(e-mail: ted.v.proschwitz@vgregion.se)
Gerhard Falkner
Staatliches Museum ftir Naturkunde Stuttgart, Germany
(e-mail: Falkner@malaco.de)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.5 and 23.10 of the
Code, is to conserve the specific name of Arion (Carinarion) fasciatus (Nilsson, 1823)
(ARIONIDAE), Originally published in the combination Limax fasciatus as a primary
homonym of Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789 (LIMACIDAE). The two names have
not been considered congeneric since the 19th century. We propose to conserve the
name Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823, by ruling that the name is not invalid by reason
of being a junior primary homonym.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Pulmonata; LIMACOIDEA; LIMACI-
DAE; ARIONOIDEA; ARIONIDAE; Limax; Arion; Carinarion; Limax fasciatus; Arion
fasciatus; slugs.
1. The name Arion (Carinarion) fasciatus (Nilsson, 1823) has been used world-wide
for many decades to refer unambiguously to a well-known common and widely
distributed species of land slug, which is also of importance in the applied sciences
(e.g. Godan, 1983; Barker, 2002; South, 1992). The prevailing usage of this name is
demonstrated in the 25 works cited in Falkner et al. (2002, p. 141, note 269).
Additional citations demonstrating usage include Walden (1955), Lohmander (1959),
Hudec (1960), Chichester & Getz (1969), Getz & Chichester (1971); Grossu (1970),
Wiktor (1973, 1996), Riedel & Wiktor (1974), McCracken & Selander (1980),
Reischiitz (1986), Backeljau et al. (1997), Schmid (1997), Turgeon et al. (1998),
Jordaens et al. (2002) and Geenen et al. (2006). In Geenen et al. (2006) the three
species of the subgenus Carinarion are synonymised under Arion fasciatus. This
emphasises the necessity to conserve Nilsson’s name. There are also multiple other
examples of usages, especially in the faunistic literature. A list of additional 50
references demonstrating the usage of the name Arion fasciatus is held by the
Commission Secretariat.
2. Arion (Carinarion) fasciatus (Nilsson, 1823) was originally described as Limax
fasciatus Nilsson, 1823 (p. 3). This was a junior primary homonym of Limax fasciatus
254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
Razoumowsky, 1789 (p. 267), and should normally have been regarded as perma-
nently invalid. With the aim of preserving the current usage of the combination Arion
fasciatus (Nilsson), an action was taken in accordance with Article 23.9.2 of the Code
by Falkner et al. (2002, p. 141, note 269) and Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789
was declared a nomen oblitum. We recently found that this action was taken in
error and that the conditions of the relevant Articles were not met. The name
Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789, has been used as valid at least twice after 1899.
Taylor (1906, p. 266) used it in the combination Limax maximus var. fasciata
Razoumowsky, 1789, to denote a variety of Limax maximus Linnaeus, 1758, and
Alzona (1971, p. 149) used it in the combination Limax albipes fasciatus
Razoumowsky, 1789, to denote a subspecies of Limax albipes Dumont & Mortillet,
1853 Gan Dumont & Mortillet, 1852-1854). In such a case, Article 23.10 of the Code
(Erroneous reversal of precedence) requires reference to the Commission.
3. Meanwhile the perception of Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789 has changed.
A working-group of the Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde Stuttgart (Sektion
Malakologie) has undertaken research in the type locality near Lausanne, in order to
clarify the identity of that unjustly neglected nominal taxon. As a result of the
historical studies of Grossenbacher (1990) the type locality could be more precisely
defined and it was found that the species is sufficiently described to be recognised in
the field. A large revision is in preparation and from preliminary results it seems very
likely that this early name for an alpine Limax needs to be revalidated. Up to now no
other available names which could potentially be applied to Razoumowsky’s Limax
species have been identified. We thus think it desirable to reinstate its priority over
Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823, and then deal with the latter junior homonym by
recourse to a different provision of the Code.
4. According to modern taxonomic views there is no conflict or possible confusion
of Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823 with Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789. Shortly
after its description Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823 was recognised as belonging to the
genus Arion A. Férusac, 1819. In the 19th century it was consistently placed in this
genus, either as a valid species or as a synonym, e.g. by C. Pfeiffer (1828, p. 11),
Nordenskidld & Nylander (1856, p. 3); Westerlund (1865, p. 27), Collinge (1892, p.
77). Thereafter the two species have never been included in the same genus.
Introducing a replacement name for Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823, in general use as
Arion fasciatus (Nilsson, 1823), would cause considerable confusion. Article 23.9.5 of
the Code (names not considered congeneric after 1899) states that such a case should
be referred to the Commission. The present application aims to conserve the
prevailing usage in the interests of stability and universality of nomenclature.
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to rule that reversal of precedence of Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789 and
Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823 by Falkner et al. (2002, p. 141, note 269) was
erroneous and the priority of Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789 is main-
tained;
(2) to use its plenary power to rule that the specific name Limax fasciatus Nilsson,
1823, is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Limax
fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 255
(a) fasciatus Nilsson, 1823, as published in the binomen Limax fasciatus, with
the endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary
homonym of Limax fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789;
(b) fasciatus Razoumowsky, 1789, as published in the binomen Limax
fasciatus.
References
Alzona, C. 1971. Malacofauna Italica. Catalogo e bibliografia dei Molluschi viventi, terrestri
e d’acqua dolce. Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia
Naturale di Milano, 111: 433 pp., 1 p. Errata.
Backeljau, Th., De Bruyn, L., De Wolf, H., Jordaens, K., Van Dongen, S. & Winnepenninckx,
B. 1997. Allozyme diversity in slugs of the Carinarion complex (Mollusca, Pulmonata).
Heredity, 78: 445-451.
Barker, G.M. (Ed.). 2002. Molluscs as crop pests. XII, 468 pp. CABI Publishing, Wallingford,
U.K
Chichester, L.F. & Getz, L.L. 1969. The zoogeography and ecology of Arionid and Limacid
slugs introduced into northeastern North America. Malacologia, 7(2/3): 313-346.
Collinge, W.E. 1892. A Review of the Arionidae of the British Isles. The Conchologist, 2(3):
56-66, (4): 76-83.
Dumont, F. & Mortillet, G. de. 1852—1854. Histoire naturelle des Mollusques terrestres et d’eau
douce vivants et fossiles de la Savoie et du bassin du Leman. Bulletin de la Société
d Histoire naurelle de Savoie, 2 [1852]: 14-142; 3 [1853]: 1-78; Annales de la Société
d Histoire naturelle de Savoie, 1854: 81-152, 239-248. Chambéry. [Separatum: pp. 1-270.
Geneve].
Falkner, G., Ripken, Th. E.J. & Falkner, M. 2002. Mollusques continentaux de France. Liste
de Référence annotée et Bibliographie. Collection Patrimoines Naturels, 52: 350 pp.
Getz, L.L. & Chichester, L.F. 1971. Introduced European slugs. The Biologist, 53(3): 118-127.
Geenen, S., Jordaens, K. & Backeljau, Th. 2006. Molecular systematics of the Carinarion
complex (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Pulmonata): a taxonomic riddle caused by a mixed
breeding system. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 89(4): 589-604.
Godan, D. 1983. Pest slugs and snails. Biology and control. [Translated from the German by S.
Gruber.] 445 pp. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Grossenbacher, K. 1990. Die Entdeckung des Fadenmolches durch Graf Gregor Razoumowsky
in der Schweiz. Jahrbuch des Naturhistorischen Museums Bern, 10 [1987/1989]: 151-167.
Grossu, A.V. 1970. Revizuirea speciilor genului Arion Férussac in Romania (Gastropoda,
Arionidae). Comunicarile de Zoologie, Societatea de Stiinte Biologice din Romdnia: 62-74.
Hudec, V. 1960. Rozdily na pohlavnich organech. plzaki Arion circumscriptus Johnst. a Arion
fasciatus (Nilss.). Casopis Narodniho Musea (Praha), Odd. pfir., 129(2): 204-205.
Jordaens, K., Van Dongen, S., Van Riel, P., Geenen, S., Verhagen, R. & Backeljau, Th. 2002.
Multivariate morphometrics of soft body parts in terrestrial slugs: comparison between
two datasets, error assessment and taxonomic implications. Biological Journal of the
Linnean Society, 75(4): 533-542.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Lohmander, H. 1959. Faunistiskt faltarbete i vastra och norra Jylland 1954-57. Landmollusk-
erna. Géteborgs Naturhistoriska Museum Arstryck, 1959: 33-104.
McCracken, G.F. & Selander, R.K. 1980. Self-fertilization and monogenic strains in natural
populations of terrestrial slugs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA,
77(1): 684-688.
Nilsson, S. 1823. Historia Molluscorum Sveciae terrestrium et fluviatilium breviter delineata.
Tit., XX, 124 pp. J.H. Schuboth, Lundae. [For the publication date see B.B. Woodward
1924, Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 16: 23.]
Nordenskidld, A.E. & Nylander, A.E. 1856. Finlands Mollusker. Tit., XVIII, 114, [2] pp., 7 pls.
Simeli, Helsingfors.
Pfeiffer, C. 1828. Naturgeschichte deutscher Land- und Stisswasser-Mollusken. Dritte Abthei-
lung: VI, 84 pp., 8 Taf. Grossherzogl. Sachs. privil. Landes-Industrie-Comptoir, Weimar.
256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
Razoumowski, G. de. 1789. Histoire naturelle du Jorat et de ses environs; Et celle des trois Lacs
de Neufchatel, Morat et Bienne; Précédées d’un Essai sur le Climat, les Productions, le
Commerce, les Animaux de la partie du Pays de Vaud ou de la Suisse Romande, qui entre
dans le plan de cet Ouvrage, Tome premier. [4], XVI, 322 pp. Jean Mourer, Lausanne.
[Mollusca: pp. 266—278.] E
Reischiitz, P.L. 1986. Die Verbreitung der Nacktschnecken Osterreichs (Arionidae, Milacidae,
Limacidae, Agriolimacidae, Boettgerillidae) — (Supplement 2 des Catalogus Faunae
Austriae). Sitzungsberichte der Gsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, math.-
naturw. KL, Abt. I, 195(1/5): 67-190. |
Riedel, A. & Wiktor, A. 1974. Arionacea — Slimaki krazatkowate i Slinikowate (Gastropoda:
Stylommatophora). Fauna Polski, vol. 2. 140 pp. Panstwowe wydawnictwo Naukowe,
Warszawa.
Schmid, G. 1997. ,,Malakologische Zuckungen“’ Momentaufnahmen zur Molluskenfauna
Baden-Wirttembergs. Veréffentlichungen fiir Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege in Baden-
Wiirttemberg, 71/72(2): 719-858.
South, A. 1992. Terrestrial Slugs: Biology, ecology and control. X, 428 pp. Chapman & Hall,
London.
Taylor, J.W. 1906. Monograph of the land- and freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles, vol. 2
(Part 12). Pp. 225-280 & 1-16, pls. 15, 22, 23, 25. Taylor Brothers, Leeds.
Turgeon, D.D., Quinn, J.F. (Jr.), Bogan, A.E., Coan, E.V., Hochberg, F.G., Lyons, W.G.,
Mikkelsen, P.M., Neves, R.J., Roper, C.F.E., Rosenberg, G., Roth, B., Scheltema, A.,
Thompson, F.G., Vecchione, M. & Williams, J.D. 1998. Common and scientific names of
aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks, 2°° edition. American
Fisheries Society, Special Publication, 26: IX, 526 pp. Bethesda, Maryland.
Waldén, H.W. 1955. The land Gastropoda of the vicinity of Stockholm. Arkiv fér Zoologi,
(2)7(21): 391-448, 1 pl.
Westerlund, C.A. 1865. Sveriges land- och sétvatten-mollusker. [4], 142 pp. Gleerups, Lund.
Wiktor, A. 1973. Die Nacktschnecken Polens. Monografie Fauny polski, 1: 182 pp., 94 pp.
illustrations, | p. table of contents. Polska Akademia Nauk, Warszawa-Krakow.
Wiktor, A. 1996. The Slugs of the Former Yugoslavia (Gastropoda terrestria nuda —
Arionidae, Milacidae, Limacidae, Agriolimacidae). Annales zoologici, 46(1/2): 1-110.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 160.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 257
Case 3568
Stirpulina Stoliczka, 1870 (Mollusca, Bivalvia, Anomalodesmata,
CLAVAGELLIDAE): proposed conservation by suppression of Tubolana
Bivona Bernardi, 1832
Martyn E.Y. Low
Department of Marine and Environmental Sciences, Graduate School of
Engineering and Science, University of the Ryukyus, 1 Senbaru, Nishihara,
Okinawa 903-0213, Japan (e-mail: m.low@me.com)
Be date
Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, Department of Biological Sciences,
National University of Singapore, Block S6, Science Drive 2, #03—01,
Singapore 117546, Republic of Singapore (e-mail: dbstsk@nus.edu.sg)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 and Recommendation
23A of the Code, is to conserve the genus name Stirpulina Stoliczka, 1870 for a group
of watering pot shells. The genus name Stirpulina is in widespread and current use.
This name is threatened by the little-used senior subjective synonym Tubolana Bivona
Bernardi, 1832. It is proposed that the name Stirpulina be conserved by the
suppression of Tubolana.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Bivalvia; Anomalodesmata; CLAVAGELLOIDEA;
CLAVAGELLIDAE; Stirpulina; Tubolana; Stirpulina coronata; Tubolana digitata; watering
pot shells; Upper Cretaceous; Recent.
1. Bivona Bernardi (1832, pp. 55, 56) established the genus name Tubolana for a
single new fossil species Tubolana digitata Bivona Bernardi, 1832 (pp. 56, 57), the
type species by monotypy. This name was also spelt as Tubulana ditata (p. 56) in the
original publication. All subsequent publications have used the spelling Tubolana
digitata (e.g. di Monterosato, 1877, p. 40; Smith, 1962, p. 170; Keen & Smith, 1969,
p. N858; Stallwood, 1995, p. 88).
2. The species name Tubolana digitata Bivona Bernardi, 1832 has not been used as
a valid name since it was first synonymised with the fossil species Clavagella bacillaris
Deshayes, 1830 (pp. 239, 240) by di Monterosato, 1877 (p. 40). This synonymy has
not been disputed (e.g. Smith, 1962; Keen & Smith, 1969; Stallwood, 1995).
3. Stoliczka (1870, pp. xv, 27, 28) established the generic name Stirpulina for two
fossil species: Clavagella coronata Deshayes, 1824 (pp. 8, 9) and Clavagella bacillaris
Deshayes, 1830. Clavagella coronata is the type species by original designation
(Stoliczka, 1870, p. xv).
4. The genus name Tubolana Bivona Bernardi, 1832 is a senior subjective synonym
of Stirpulina Stoliczka, 1870 as the type species of Tubolana (T. digitata) is a junior
subjective synonym of a species included in Stirpulina (Clavagella bacillaris; see
Stallwood, 1995, p. 88).
258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
5. The genus Stirpulina is currently composed of fourteen fossil and one extant
species known from the Late Cretaceous onwards (see Stallwood, 1995, p. 88). The
single extant species is Clavagella ramosa Dunker, 1882 (p. 172), which was first
transferred to the genus Stirpulina by Fujita (1929, p. 62). Stirpulina ramosa
(Dunker, 1882) has been of considerable use in understanding the evolution of tube
formation in bivalve molluscs (e.g. Savazzi, 1982, 2005; Morton, 2005, 2006b,
2007). The genus Stirpulina is currently assigned to the family CLAVAGELLIDAE
d’Orbigny, 1845 (superfamily CLAVAGELLOIDEA d’Orbigny, 1845, Anomalodesmata
Dall, 1889) (see Morton, 2005, p. 204; Bieler et al. in Bouchet & Rocroi, 2010,
p:. 132);
6. The genus Stirpulina has been in widespread and current use since it was first
established by Stoliczka in 1870. In the past 50 years, at least 30 publications by 17
different authors using Stirpulina as a valid genus have been located (e.g. Holzl, 1961,
p. 65; Smith, 1962, p. 168, 1963, p. 15; Keen & Smith, 1969, p. N858; Buccheri, 1970,
p. 241; B.J. Smith, 1976, p. 195; Maxwell, 1978, p. 29; Savazzi, 1982, p. 293; Morton,
1984, p. 464; Pojeta & Sohl, 1987, p. 5, 1988, p. 826; Jones & Nicol, 1989; p. 320;
Darga, 1990, p. 20; Mayoral, 1990, p. 117; Stallwood, 1995, p. 84; Dulai, 1996, p. 71;
Morton, 2002a, p. 546, 2002b, p. 13; 2003, p. 389, 2004a, p. 37; 2004b, p. 246, 2004c,
p. 355; 2005, p. 202; 2006a, p. 187, 2006b, p. 233, 2006c, p. 103, 2007, p. 19, 2009,
p. 252; Savazzi, 2005, p. 180; Morton & Grebneff, 2011, p. 125). This fulfils the
conditions of Article 23.9.1.2 of the Code (Reversal of Precedence).
7. Since 1899, just five publications using the genus name Tubolana have been
located. Two publications considered this name to be valid but taxonomically
unplaced (Vokes, 1967, p. 341; 1980, p. 214). Two other publications considered this
name to be valid and a possible senior synonym of Stirpulina but gave preference to
the name Stirpulina (L.A. Smith, 1962, p. 170; Keen & L.A. Smith, 1969, p. N858).
The final and most recent use of the name Jubolana was in a reprint of di
Monterosato’s collected works (Giannuzzi Savelli, 1989, p. 1407), where all instances
of the name Tubolana (without discussion of the validity of the name) as used by di
Monterosato were listed. The post-1899 use of Tubolana as a valid generic name in
the first four publications means that the conditions of Article 23.9.1.1 of the Code
(Reversal of Precedence) are not met and a ruling by the Commission is needed for
formal suppression of the name.
8. The generic name Stirpulina Stoliczka, 1870 has been used as valid in at least
30 publications in the past 50 years. The generic name Tubolana Bivona Bernardi,
1832 has been used as valid only four times since 1899. Although the conditions
of Article 23.9.1 for maintaining current usage are not fulfilled, the conser-
vation of the name Stirpulina Stoliczka, 1870 would best serve nomenclatural
stability.
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name 7ubolana Bivona Bernardi, 1832
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle
of Homonymy;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Stirpulina
Stoliczka, 1870 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Clava-
gella coronata Deshayes, 1824;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 259
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name coronata
Deshayes, 1824, as published in the binomen Clavagella coronata (specific
name of the type species of Stirpulina Stoliczka, 1870);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the name Tubolana Bivona Bernardi, 1832, as suppressed in (1) above.
References
Bieler, R., Carter, J.G. & Coan, E.V. 2010. A classification of bivalve families. Pp. 113-133 in
Bouchet, P. & Rocroi, J.-P., Nomenclator of bivalve families. Malacologia, 52(2): 1-184.
Bivona Bernardi, A. 1832. Caratteri di un nuovo genere di conchliglie fossili, estratti dalle
Collettanee di Storia naturale. Effemeridi Scientifiche e Letterariae per la Sicilia, 1: 55-62.
Bouchet, P. & Rocroi, J.-P. 2010. Nomenclator of Bivalve families. Malacologia, 52(2): 1-184.
Buccheri, G. 1970. Una malacofauna calabriana del territorio di Sciacca (Sicilia sud-
occidentale). Geologica Romana, 9: 239-274.
Dall, W.H. 1889. On the hinge of pelecypods and its development, with an attempt toward a
better subdivision of the group. American Journal of Science, (3)38(228): 445-462.
Darga, R. 1990. The Eisenrichterstein near Hallthurm, Bavaria: An Upper Eocene Carbonate
Ramp (Northern Calcareous Alps). Facies, 23(1): 17-33.
Deshayes, G.P. 1824. Description des coquilles fossiles des environs de Paris. Tome 1.
Conchiferes, pp. 1-178. Deshayes, Jeune, Fréres et Treuttel, Paris.
Deshayes, G.P. 1830. Encyclopédie méthodique. Histoire naturelle des Vers, vol. 2, pt. 1, vii, 256
pp. Agasse, Paris.
Dulai, A. 1996. Anterior fringe fragment of Clavagella (Bivalvia) from the Middle Miocene
(Badenian) sandy deposits of Szob (Bérzs6ny Mts., Hungary). Fragmenta Mineralogica et
Palaeontologica, 18: 71-78.
Dunker, G. 1882. Index Molluscorum Maris Japonici. Novitates conchologicae, Abbildung und
Beschreibing neuer Conchylien, Supplement 7: i—vii, [1], 1-301, [1].
Fujita, T. 1929. [Report on the dredged shells of Tateyama Bay (1)]. Venus, 1(2): 58-65.
Giannuzzi Savelli, R.G. 1989. Opera Omnia, vol. 4. 1187-1793 pp. Unione Malacologica
Italiana, Palermo, Italy.
Holzl, O. 1961. Leitende Molluskenarten aus der marinen und brackischen Molasse Oberbay-
erns. Paldontologische Zeitschrift, 35(1—2): 62-78.
Jones, D.S. & Nicol, D. 1989. Eocene clavagellids (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) from Florida: The
first documented occurrence in the Cenozoic of the Western Hemisphere. Journal of
Paleontology, 63(3): 320-323.
Keen, A.M. & Smith, L.A. 1969. Superfamily Clavagellacea. Pp. N857—N859 in Moore, R.C.
(Ed.), Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Part N. Volume 2. Mollusca 6. Bivalvia, The
Geological Society of America, Inc. & University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Maxwell, P.A. 1978. Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on some New Zealand Cenozoic
Mollusca, with descriptions of new taxa. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 5(1): 15-46.
Mayoral, E. 1990. Bivalvia: Clavagellacea (Stirpulina pliocenica nov. sp.) del Neégeno Superior
de la Cuenca del Bajo Guadalquivir. Treballs del Museu de Geologia de Barcelona, 1:
117-134.
Monterosato, M. di. 1877. Catalogo dell Conchiglie fossili di Monte Pellegrino e Ficarazzi
presso Palermo. Bollettino del Reale Comitato Geologico d'Italia, 1-2: 28-41.
Morton, B. 1984. Adventitious tube construction in Brechites vaginiferus (Bivalvia: Anomal-
odesmata: Clavagellacea) with an investigation of the juvenile of “Humphreyia strangei”.
Journal of Zoology, 203(4): 461-484.
Morton, B. 2002a. Biology and functional morphology of the watering pot shell Brechites
vaginiferus (Bivalvia: Anomalodesmata: Clavagellidae). Journal of Zoology, 257(4):
545-562.
Morton, B. 2002b. The biology and functional morphology of Humphreyia strangei (Bivalvia:
Anomalodesmata: Clavagellidae): an Australian cemented watering pot shell. Journal of
Zoology, 258(1): 11-25.
260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
Morton, B. 2003. The biology and functional morphology of Dianadema gen. nov. multangu-
laris (Tate, 1887) (Bivalvia: Anomalodesmata: Clavagellidae). Journal of Zoology, 259(4):
389-401.
Morton, B. 2004a. The biology and functional morphology of Foegia novaezelandiae (Bivalvia:
Anomalodesmata: Clavagelloidea) from Western Australia. Malacologia, 46(1): 37-55.
Morton, B. 2004b. Biology and functional morphology of Kendrickiana gen. nov. veitchi
(Bivalvia: Anomalodesmata: Clavagelloidea) from southern Australia. Invertebrate
Biology, 123(3): 244-259.
Morton, B. 2004c. The biology and functional morphology of Nipponoclava gigantea: clues to
the evolution of tube dwelling in the Penicillidae (Bivalvia: Anomalodesmata: Clavagel-
loidea). Journal of Zoology, 264(4): 355-369.
Morton, B. 2005. Biology and functional morphology of a new species of endolithic Bryopa
(Bivalvia: Anomalodesmata: Clavagelloidea) from Japan and a comparison with fossil
species of Stirpulina and other Clavagellidae. Invertebrate Biology, 124(3): 202-219.
Morton, B. 2006a. The functional morphology of Penicillus philippinensis (Anomalodesmata:
Clavagelloidea) and the evolution of a unique muscular system in the Bivalvia. Records of
the Western Australian Museum, 23(2): 175-192.
Morton, B. 2006b. Structure and formation of the adventitious tube of the Japanese
watering-pot shell Stirpulina ramosa (Bivalvia, Anomalodesmata, Clavagellidae) and a
comparison with that of the Penicillidae. Invertebrate Biology, 125(3): 233-249.
Morton, B. 2006c. A new species and first record of the endobenthic clavagellid Stirpulina
(Bivalvia: Anomalodesmata) from the late Eocene of southern Western Australia.
Alcheringa: an Australasian Journal of Palaeontology, 30(1): 103-110.
Morton, B. 2007. The evolution of the watering pot shells (Bivalvia: Anomalodesmata:
Clavagellidae and Penicillidae). Records of the Western Australian Museum, 24(1): 19-64.
Morton, B. 2009. The watering pot shell Dianadema minima (Bivalvia, Anomalodesmata,
Clavagellidae): re-description and an interpretation of adventitious crypt formation.
Invertebrate Biology, 128(3): 252-260.
Morton, B. & Grebneff, A. 2011. A new species and a new record of endobenthic Clavagellidae
(Bivalvia: Anomalodesmata: Clavagelloidea) from the Oligocene and Miocene of New
Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 54(1): 125-134.
d’Orbigny, A. 1844-1858. Paléontologie francaise. Description zoologique et géologique de tous
les Animaux mollusques et rayonnés fossiles de France. Terrains crétacés, vol. 3, 807 pp.
Arthus Bertrand, Paris. [Published in parts. Family-group name Clavagellinae first used
on page 299 (published 1845), see Bouchet & Rocroi, 2010, p. 161.]
Pojeta, J., Jr. & Sohl, N.F. 1987. Ascaulocardium armatum (Morton, 1833), new genus (Late
Cretaceous): The ultimate variation on the bivalve paradigm. Paleontological Memoirs,
24: 1-77.
Pojeta, J., Jr. & Sohl, N.F. 1988. Eocene clavagellids from Florida. Journal of Paleontology,
62(5): 826.
Savazzi, E. 1982. Adaptations to tube dwelling in the Bivalvia. Lethaia, 15(3): 275-297.
Savazzi, E. 2005. The function and evolution of lateral asymmetry in boring endolithic
bivalves. Paleontological Research, 9(2): 169-187.
Smith, B.J. 1976. Revision of the Recent species of the family Clavagellidae (Mollusca:
Bivalvia). Journal of the Malacological Society of Australia, 3(3-4): 187-207.
Smith, L.A. 1962. Revision of the Clavagellacea. Veliger, 4(4): 167-174.
Smith, L.A. 1963. Historical Zoogeographic Study of the Clavagellacea. Veliger, 5(1): 15-19.
Stallwood, R.B. 1995. A Turonian clavagellid (Bivalvia) from the Ladd Formation of Southern
California. Journal of Paleontology, 69(1): 84-88.
Stoliczka, F. 1870. Cretaceous fauna of Southern India, vol. 3. The Pelecypoda, with a review
of all known Genera of this class, fossil and recent. Palaeontologia Indica, being figures and
descriptions of the organic remains procured during the progress of the Geological Survey of
India, (6)3(1-4): xxii, 1-8, 8a, 8B, 86, 9-222.
Vokes, H.E. 1967. Genera of the Bivalvia: A systematic and bibliographic catalogue. Bulletins
of American Paleontology, 51(232): [8], 111-394.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 261
Vokes, H.E. 1980. Genera of the Bivalvia. A Systematic and Bibliographic Catalogue (Revised
and Updated). xxvii, 307 pp. Paleontological Research Institution, New York.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 159.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
Case 3541
METINAE Simon, 1894 (Arachnida, Araneae, TETRAGNATHIDAE):
proposed emendation of the current spelling to METAINAE to remove
homonymy with METIDAE Boeck, 1872 (Crustacea, Copepoda)
Fernando Alvarez-Padilla
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, Facultad de Ciencias, Depto.
Biologia Comparada, Lab. Acarologia, Ciudad Universitaria, Ciudad de
Mexico, Del. Coyoacan C.P. 04510 Mexico
(e-mail: fap@ciencias.unam.mx)
Gustavo Hormiga
The George Washington University, Department of Biological Sciences,
20203 G St. NW Washington D.C., 20050 U.S.A.
(e-mail: hormiga@gwu.edu)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 55.3.1 and 29 of the Code,
is to remove homonymy between the family-group name METINAE Simon, 1894
currently used in Araneae (TETRAGNATHIDAE) and the crustacean family-group name
METIDAE Boeck, 1872. It is proposed that the spelling of the spider name (based on the
generic name Meta C.L. Koch, 1835) be emended to give METAINAE, while leaving the
crustacean name (based on the generic name Mefris) unaltered.
Keywords: Arachnida; Araneae; TETRAGNATHIDAE; Crustacea; Copepoda; METIDAE;
Meta; Metis; Meta menardi; Metis ignea; crustaceans; spiders.
1. The family group name METEAE was proposed by Simon for a group of orb
weaving spiders that he defined morphologically as ‘intermediate between Tetrag-
natha Latreille, 1804 and Nephila Leach, 1815’ (Simon, 1894, p. 726). The type genus
for this family group name was Meta C.L. Koch, 1835 (pl. 12), with the type species
Epeira menardi Latreille, 1804. Simon (1894) did not mention the etymology of this
genus. However, several of Simon’s interpretations of names were later corrected by
Thorell (1869) who considered Meta to be a Greek proper noun based on the name
of the first wife of Aegeus, legendary King of Athens (Thorell, 1869, p. 35; Cameron
in Ubick et al., 2005). Other uses of the family group name Meteae after Simon’s
(1894) work were: Petrunkevitch’s Systema Araneorum published in 1928. This spider
catalog ranked METEAE as the subfamily METINAE and included metine spiders within
the former orb-weaver family ARGIOPIDAE (Petrunkevitch, 1928, p. 141). Roewer’s
(1942) catalog followed the usage of METINAE, but considered it a subfamily within
ARANEIDAE. Levi (1980) was the first to diagnose METINAE, revise the North American
species and discuss its phylogenetic relationships with other araneoids. Platnick
(1989) noted that the spider family name METINAE is invalid because it was
preoccupied in the Copepoda. However, the name METINAE has been used by several
authors in discussions of the taxonomy and phylogeny of these spiders (e.g. Heimer
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 263
& Nentwig, 1982; Brignoli, 1983; Levi 1986; Coddington, 1990; Hormiga et al., 1995;
Griswold et al., 1998; Kuntner & Alvarez-Padilla, 2006; Alvarez-Padilla, 2007;
Alvarez-Padilla et al., 2009). We have recently explained this homonymy problem
and diagnosed the subfamily using the name METAINAE Simon, 1894 to avoid the
homonymy (Alvarez-Padilla et al., 2009).
2. The crustacean family METIDAE was first proposed by Boeck (1872, p. 59) to
include a group of Copepoda whose type genus is Metis Philippi, 1843 (p. 59), with
the type species Metis ignea Philippi (p. 61). Homonymy of the two family group
names arose because even though the generic names have different spellings, the
names of their type genera have the same stem (Met-). The crustacean name
METIDAE Boeck, 1872 has priority over METINAE Simon, 1894 (Article 23.1 of the
Code). Unfortunately Philippi did not give the etymology of Metis (Philippi, 1843,
p. 59) or specify the language of this word, but the name is probably derived from
the Greek noun métis, meaning counsel, wisdom, skill or prudence. Its usual
genitive is metios, so the stem would be meti- and a family name based on it
METIIDAE, although there is a less used genitive (in lyric compositions), metidos, in
which the stem is metid- and a family name based on it METIDIDAE. However, the
original spelling METIDAE Boeck, 1872 seems to be uncontested as the spelling in
prevailing usage, even if METIIDAE OF METIDIDAE is the grammatically correct spelling.
Therefore we suggest that the current spelling METIDAE for the crustacean family be
maintained under Article 29.5 (Maintenance of current spellings of family-group
names). |
3. Reversal of precedence under Article 23.9.2 cannot be applied to this senior
homonym because the name METIDAE Boeck, 1872 has been used more than 25 times
after 1899 within Crustacea (Sars, 1910; Farran, 1913; Wilson, 1932; Guaita, 1961;
Vervoort, 1964; Coull, 1977; Por, 1984; Gerber, 1987; Dahms, 1989; Meyer & Bell,
1989; Fiers, 1992; Damkaer, 1996; Suarez-Morales et al., 2006; Wells, 2007 and
references therein). Therefore, the case is referred to the Commission under Article
55.3.1 of the Code.
4. We propose to emend the spelling of the family-group name METINAE Simon,
1894 to METAINAE to remove its homonymy with METIDAE Boeck, 1872.
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code
the stem of the generic name Meta C.L. Koch, 1835 is Meta-;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following
names:
(a) Meta C.L. Koch, 1835 (gender: feminine), type species Epeira menardi
Latreille, 1804 by original designation;
(b) Metis Philippi, 1843 (gender: feminine), type species Metis ignea Philippi,
1843 by monotypy;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following
names:
(a) menardi Latreille, 1804, as published in the binomen Epeira menardi
(specific name of the type species of Meta C.L. Koch, 1835);
(b) ignea Philippi, 1843, as published in the binomen Metis ignea (specific
name of the type species of Metis Philippi, 1843);
264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following
names:
(a) METAINAE Simon, 1894, type genus Meta C.L. Koch, 1835, spelling
emended by the ruling in (1) above (Arachnida, Araneae);
(b) METIDAE Boeck, 1872, type genus Metis Philippi, 1843 (Crustacea, Co-
pepoda);
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology the name METINAE Simon, 1894 (Arachnida, Araneae), spelling
emended to METAINAE, as ruled in (1) above.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr Mark Harvey (Western Australian Museum) for reviewing
this manuscript, Dr Wojciech Pulawski and Dr Charles Griswold (California
Academy of Sciences) for their valuable comments on early versions. We also would
like to thank one of the IZCN Commissioners for kindly providing the etymology of
Metis and valuable suggestions to this petition. Funding for this research was
provided by grants from the U.S. National Science Foundation (DEB-0328644 to
G. Hormiga and G. Giribet).
References
Alvarez-Padilla, F. 2007. Systematics of the spider genus Metabus O. P.-Cambridge, 1899
(Araneoidea: Tetragnathidae) with additions to the tetragnathid fauna of Chile and
comments on the phylogeny of Tetragnathidae. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society,
151: 285-335.
Alvarez-Padilla, F., Dimitrov, D., Giribet, G. & Hormiga, G. 2009. Phylogenetic relationships
of the spider family Tetragnathidae (Araneae, Araneoidea) based on morphological and
DNA sequence data. Cladistics, 29: 109-146.
Boeck, A. 1872. Nye Slaegter og Arter af Saltvands-Copepoder. Forhandlinger i Videnskabs-
Selskabet i Christiania, 1872: 35—60.
Brignoli, P.M. 1983. A catalogue of the Araneso described between 1940 and 1981. 755 pp.
Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Cameron, H.D. 2005. An etymological dictionary of North American spider genus names.
274-330. In: Ubick, D., Paquin, P., Cushing, P.E. Roth, V. (Eds). Spiders of North
America: an identification manual. American Arachnological Society. 377 pp.
Coddington, J.A. 1990. Ontogeny and homology in the male palpus of orb-weaving spiders and
their relatives, with comments on phylogeny (Araneoclada: Araneoidea, Deinopoidea).
Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 496: 1-52.
Coull, B.C. 1977. Marine flora and fauna of the northeastern United Sates. Copepoda:
Harpacticoida. NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circular 399. Pp. 1-48.Washington D.C.
Dahms, H.U. 1989. First record of a lecithotrophic nauplius in Harpacticoida (Crustacea,
Copepoda) collected from the Weddell Sea (Antarctica). Polar Biology, 10: 221-224.
Damkaer, D.M. 1996. Copepod taxonomy: Discovery vs. recognition. Proccedings of the
Biological Society of Washington, 109: 687-694.
Farran, G.P. 1913. Marine Entomostraca. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 31: 1-20.
Fiers, F. 1992. Metis reducta n. sp. and Laubieria tercera n. sp. (Harpacticoida, Metidae) from
the southern coast of Papua, New-Guinea. Belgian Journal of Zoology, 122: 37-51.
Gerber, P.A. 1987. Lagoon plankton of Enewetak Atoll. Pp. 203-217 In: The Natural History
of Enewetak Atoll. Volume 2. Biogeography and Systematics, Devaney, D.M., Reese, E.S.,
Burch, B.L. & Helfrich, P. (Eds.), 348 pp. Office of Scientific & Technical Information US
Department of Energy. U.S.A.
Guaita, E. F. 1961. Catalogo de los Copepodos Planctonicos Chilenos. Gayana, 4: 3-59.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 265
Griswold, C.E., Coddington, J.A., Hormiga, G. & Scharff, N. 1998. Phylogeny of the orb-web
building spiders (Araneae, Orbiculariae: Deinopoidea, Araneoidea). Zoological Journal of
the Linnean Society, 123: 1-99.
Heimer, S. & Nentwig, W. 1982. Thoughts on the phylogeny of the Araneoidea Latreille, 1806
(Arachnida, Araneae). Zeitschrift fiir Zoologische Systematik Und Evolutionsforschung,
20: 284-295.
Hormiga, G., Eberhard, W.G. & Coddington, J.A. 1995. Web-construction behaviour in
Australian Phonognatha and the phylogeny of nephiline and tetragnathid spiders (Ara-
neae: Tetragnathidae). Australian Journal of Zoology, 43: 313-364.
Koch, C.L. 1835. Jn Herrich-Schaffer, G.W. Favnae insectorum Germanicae initia. Arach-
niden. Heft 128, folio 8-16, 23-24; Heft 129, folio 12-24; Heft 130, folio 13-14; Heft 131,
folio 1-24; Heft 134, folio 1-24. Regensburg.
Kuntner, M. & Alvarez-Padilla, F. 2006. Systematics of the Afro-Macaronesian spider genus
Sancus (Araneae, Tetragnathidae). Journal of Arachnology, 34: 113-125.
Levi, H.W. 1980. The orb-weaver genus Mecynogea, the subfamily Metinae and the genera
Pachygnatha, Glenognatha and Azilia of the subfamily Tetragnathinae north of Mexico
(Araneae: Araneidae). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 149: 1-74.
Levi, H.W. 1986. The Neotropical orb-weaver genera Chrysometa and Homalometa (Araneae:
Tetragnathidae). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 151: 91-215.
Meyer, H.A. & Bell, S.S. 1989. Mouth parts of the Marine Harpacticoid Copepod Metis
holothuriae. Transaction of the American Microscopy Society, 108: 414-418.
Pesta, O. 1920. Di e Pl anc toncopepoden der Adria. Zoologischen. Jahrbtichern. Abt. f.
Systematik, 43: 471-660,
Petrunkevitch, A. 1928. Systema Araneorum. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts
and Sciences, 29: 1-270.
Philippi, A. 1843. Fernere Beobachtiingeii iber die Copepoden des Mittelmeeres. Archiv fiir
Naturgeschichte, 9: 54 — 71.
Platnick, N.I. 1989. Advances in Spider Taxonomy 1981-1987. A Supplement to Brignoli’s A
Catalogue of the Araneae described between 1940 and 1981. 673 pp. Manchester University
Press, Manchester.
Platnick, N.I. 2010. The World Spider Catalog, Version 11. The American Museum of Natural
History. Available at http://research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog (Accessed on
14 March 2011).
Por, F.D. 1984. Crustaceana. Canuellidae Lang (Harpacticoida, Polyarthra) and the ancestry
of the Copepoda in Vervoort, W. (ed.). Studies on Copepoda II. Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Copepoda. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24-28 August
1981. Crustaceana, Supplement, 7: 1-24
Roewer, C.F. 1942. Katalog der Araneae von 1758 bis 1940 1 Band. 1040 pp. Kommissions-
Verlag von ‘Natura’, Bremen, Bruxelles.
Roewer, C.F. 1954. Katalog der Araneae von 1758 bis 1940, bzw. 1954 2 Band, Art. b. 924 pp.
Rue Vautier, Bruxelles.
Simon, E. 1894. Historie naturelle des araignées I. 1084 pp. Librairie encyclodédique de Roret,
Paris.
Sars, G.O. (1910). Copepoda Harpacticoida. Parts XXIX & XXX. Tachidiidae (concluded),
Metidae, Balaenophilidae, supplement (part). An Account of the Crustacea of Norway,
with short descriptions and figures of all the species, vol. 5. Pp. 337-368, pls. 225—230,
suppl. pls. 1-10. 342 pp. Bergen Museum, Bergen.
Suarez-Morales, E., Troch, M.D. & Fiers, F. 2006. A checklist of the marine Harpacticoida
(Copepoda) of the Caribbean Sea. Zootaxa, 1285: 1-19.
Thorell, T. 1869. On European spiders. Part I. Review of the European genera of spiders,
preceded by some observations on zoological nomenclature. Nova acta Regi societatis
scientiarum upsaliensis, 7: 1-108.
Vervoort, W. 1964. Free-Living Copepoda From Ifaluk Atoll in the Caroline Islands With
Notes on Related Species. Bulletin of the United States Museum, 263: 1-431.
Wells, J.B.J. 2007. An annotated checklist and keys to the species of Copepoda Harpacticoida
(Crustacea). Zootaxa, 1568: 1-872.
266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
Wilson, C.B. 1932. The Copepods of the Woods Hole Region Massachusetts. Bulletin of the
United States Museum, 158: 1-635.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 267
Case 3570
Curculio scirpi Fabricius, 1792 (currently Notaris scirpi; Insecta,
Coleoptera, CURCULIONOIDEA, ERIRHINIDAE): proposed precedence over
Curculio rhamni Herbst, 1784 and C. scirpi Rossi, 1790
Roberto Caldara
via Lorenteggio 37, 20146 Milano, Italy
(e-mail: roberto.caldara@gmail.com)
Herbert Winkelmann
Attendorner Weg 39 A, 13507 Berlin, Germany
(e-mail: hyperiniwinkelmann@web.de)
Miguel A. Alonso-Zarazaga
Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biologia Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de
Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), José Gutiérrez Abascal, 2, E-28006 Madrid,
Spain (e-mail: zarazaga@mncn.csic.es)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3, 81.2.1 and 81.2.3 of
the Code, is to conserve the name Curculio scirpi Fabricius, 1792, a common
Palaearctic weevil species currently belonging to the genus Notaris (CURCULIONOIDEA,
ERIRHINIDAE) by giving it precedence over the little-used older name C. rhamni Herbst,
1784 whenever these names are considered to be synonyms, and by suppressing the
little-used senior homonym C. scirpi Rossi, 1790.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; CURCULIONOIDEA; ERIRHINIDAE;
Curculio; Notaris; Notaris scirpi; Notaris rhamni; Curculio scirpi; weevil; Palaearctic.
1. Herbst (1784, p. 78) described a new species of ERIRHINIDAE (formerly CURCULIO-
NIDAE) from Reppen (now Rzepin in western Poland) as Curculio rhamni. Subse-
quently (Herbst, 1795, p. 280) he redescribed this species accompanied by a drawing
and specifying that it was already described previously. This taxon was first
synonymised with Erirhinus scirpi (Fabricius, 1792) (formerly Curculio, presently
Notaris) by Gyllenhal (1835, p. 284) without comment. Klima (1934, p. 37) cited C.
rhamni Herbst, 1784 as a doubtful synonym along with Notaris scirpi and C. rhamni
sensu Herbst, 1795 as a synonym of Notaris bimaculatus (Fabricius, 1787) (presently
Tournotaris Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999). Recently in their checklist of the weevils
from the Kemerovo Province (southern Siberia) and the Coleoptera from Latvia
respectively, Krivets & Legalov (2002, p. 820) and Telnov (2004, p. 105) quoted
Notaris rhamni (Herbst, 1795) as a valid species, the latter placing scirpi (Fabricius,
1787 [sic] nec Rossi, 1790) in synonymy with rhamni. Telnov (pers. comm.) stated that
‘reporting Notaris rhamni (Herbst, 1795) in this catalogue was a mistake and does not
have any nomenclatural background’.
268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
2. Since the type material of C. rhamni was not traced, recently Caldara &
Winkelmann (2010) designated a neotype for this taxon following the original
description and the drawing reported in Herbst’s (1795) redescription and in
accordance with Article 75 of the Code. They proposed the synonymy of this species
with Notaris scirpi (Fabricius, 1792) (formerly Curculio).
3. Rossi (1790, p. 118) described Curculio scirpi based on specimens collected in
“Etruria” (presently an area of central Italy including Tuscany and part of Umbria
and Latium). Since then this taxon has never been listed in papers or catalogues
except for Telnov (2004). No type specimens of Curculio scirpi Rossi are available at
the Museum fiir Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universitat of Berlin (ex coll. J.C.L.
Hellwig), where part of Rossi’s collection is housed. However, Rossi’s description
agrees well with the modern concept of N. scirpi (Fabricius, 1792) (Hoffmann, 1958;
Dieckmann, 1986; Smreczyfski, 1972). Therefore, following all the qualifying
conditions of Article 75.3 of the Code, with the express purpose of clarifying the
taxonomic status of this taxon, clearly differentiated from other closely related
species by characters reported by Hoffmann (1958), Smreczynski (1972) and
Dieckmann (1986), we decided to designate a specimen bearing these characters as
the neotype of C. scirpi Rossi. This is a male specimen labelled as follows: ‘palude di
Fucecchio, 19-11-967, L. Failla [handwritten] / Ex-coll. Failla [printed] / NEOTYPE,
Curculio scirpi Rossi, 1790, des. Caldara & Winkelmann 2011 [red card, printed] /
Notaris scirpi (Fabricius), det. Caldara & Winkelmann 2011 [printed]’. The specimen
is 5.5 mm long (rostrum excluded), well preserved and set on a white rectangular
card. It is deposited at the Museum of Natural History of Florence. The neotype
locality of C. scirpi Rossi (originally ‘Etruria’) is Palude di Fucecchio (Pistoia,
Tuscany, Italy). The following synonymy is here proposed: Notaris scirpi (Fabricius,
1792) = Curculio scirpi Rossi, 1790 n. syn.
4. Notaris scirpi (Fabricius, 1792) (formerly Curculio) is a common weevil species
which has been cited under this name and this author repeatedly over the past 50
years (Abbazzi & Maggini, 2009; Abbazzi & Osella, 1992; Abbazzi et al., 1994;
Alonso-Zarazaga, 2002; Alonso-Zarazaga et al., 2006; Angelini, 1987; 1998; Angelini
& Montemurro, 1986; Bercio & Folwaczny, 1979; Caldara & O’Brien, 1995; Casalini
& Colonnelli, 2001; Colonnelli, 2003; Dieckmann, 1986; Endrédi, 1970; Hansen M..,
1996; Hansen V., 1964; Lohse, 1983; Morris, 2002; Pelletier, 2005, PeSic, 2004;
Silfverberg, 1979; Smreczynski, 1972; Tempére & Péricart, 1989; Thompson, 2006;
Wanat & Mocrzycki, 2005). Because of Krivets & Legalov’s citation of Notaris
rhamni (Herbst) and Telnov’s (2004) citation of Notaris rhamni (Herbst) and N. scirpi
(Rossi), the junior name scirpi Fabricius cannot be maintained under the Code,
despite being in prevailing usage according to Article 23.9.1.2 of the Code (1999), as
the conditions of Article 23.9.1.1 are not met. We also believe that the use of the
senior primary homonym scirpi Rossi, 1790 would be undesirable and would cause
nomenclatural confusion.
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power:
(a) to give the specific name scirpi Fabricius, 1792, as published in the
binomen Curculio scirpi, precedence over the name rhamni Herbst, 1784, as
published in the binomen Curculio rhamni, whenever the two names are
considered to be synonyms;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 269
(b) to suppress the specific name scirpi Rossi, 1790, as published in the
binomen Curculio scirpi, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority
and the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) scirpi Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Curculio scirpi, with the
endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name rhamni Herbst,
1784, as published in the binomen Curculio rhamni, whenever the two
names are considered to be synonyms;
(b) rhamni Herbst, 1784, as published in the binomen Curculio rhamni, with
the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name scirpi
Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Curculio scirpi, whenever the
two names are considered to be synonyms;
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name scirpi Rossi, 1790, as published in the binomen Curculio
scirpi and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.
References
Abbazzi, P. & Maggini, L. 2009. Elenco sistematico-faunistico dei Curculionoidea italiani,
Scolytidae e Platypodae esclusi (Insecta, Coleoptera). A/drovandia, 5: 29-216.
Abbazzi, P. & Osella, G. 1992. Elenco sistematico-faunistico degli Anthribidae, Rhinomaceri-
dae, Attelabidae, Apionidae, Brentidae, Curculionidae Italiani (Insecta, Coleoptera,
Curculionoidea). I Parte. Redia, 75: 267-414.
Abbazzi, P., Colonnelli, E., Masutti, L. & Osella, G. 1994. Coleoptera Polyphaga XVI
(Curculionoidea). Jn Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds.), Checklist delle specie
della fauna italiana, Fasc. 61. Calderini. 68 pp. Bologna.
Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A. 2002. Lista preliminar de los Coleoptera Curculionoidea del area
Ibero-Balear, con descriptidn de Melicius gen. nov. y nuevas citas. Boletin de la Sociedad
Entomologica Aragonesa, 31: 9-33.
Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A. & Lyal, C.H.C. 1999. 4 World Catalogue of Families and Genera of
Curculionoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera) (Excepting Scolytidae and Platypodidae). 315 pp.
Entomopraxis, S.C.P. Edition, Barcelona.
Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A., Sanchez-Ruiz, M. & Domingo-Quero, T. 2006. Lista preliminar de los
Curculionoidea (Coleoptera) de la Comunidad de Madrid (Espafia) Graelsia, 62 (numero
extraordinario): 43-52.
Angelini, F. 1987. Coleotterofauna del promontorio del Gargano (Coleoptera). Atti del Museo
Civico di Storia Naturale di Grosseto, 11112: 5—84.
Angelini, F. 1998. Coleotterofauna reperita mediante trappola luminosa in due stazioni umide
della Basilicata (Italia meridionale) (Coleoptera). Quaderni della Stazione Ecologica del
Civico Museo di Storia Naturale di Ferrara, 11: 7—37.
Angelini, F. & Montemurro, F. 1986. Coleotterofauna del boscodi Policoro (Matera) (Coleop-
tera). Biogeographia, Nuova Serie, 10(1984): 545-604.
Bercio, H. & Folwaczny, B. 1979. Verzeichnis der Kafer Preufens. 369 pp. Parzeller & Co, Fulda.
Caldara, R. & O’Brien, C.W. 1995. Curculionidae: aquatic weevils of China (Coleoptera).
Pp. 389-408 in Jach, M.A. & Ji, L. (Eds.), Water Beetles of China. vol I. Zoologisch-
Botanische Gesellschaft (Section of Entomology) und Wiener Coleopterologenverein,
Vienna.
Caldara, R. & Winkelmann, H. 2010. Notes on weevil species described by Herbst (Erirhinidae,
Coleoptera, Curculionoidea). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 37(1): 99-103.
Casalini, R. & Colonnelli, E. 2001. I Curculionoidei della tenuta presidenziale di Castelporzi-
ano (Coleoptera, Curculionoidea). Bollettino dell’Associazione Romana di Entomologia,
56: 331-352.
Colonnelli, E. 2003. A revised checklist of Italian Curculionoideae (Coleoptera). Zootaxa, 337:
1-142.
270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
Dieckmann, L. 1986. Beitrage zur Insektenfauna der DDR: Coleoptera-Curculionidae
(Erirhinae [sic]). Beitrdge zur Entomologie, 36: 119-181.
Endrédi, S. 1970. Fundortsangaben iiber die Riisselkafer (Col. Curculionidae) des Karpaten-
beckens. V. Folia Entomologica Hungarica (series nova), 23: 349-400.
Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa Insectorum, sistens corum species nuper detectas: adjectis
characteribus genericis, differentiis specificis, emendationibus, observationibus, vol. 1. xx,
348 pp. Christ. Gottl. Proft., Hafnie.
Fabricius, J.C. 1792. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta. Secundum classes, ordines,
genera, species adjectis synonimis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 1(2). 538 pp.
C.G. Proft, Hafniae.
Gyllenhal, L. 1835. In Schoenherr, C.J., Genera et species curculionidum, cum synonymia hujus
familiae. Species novae aut hactenus minus cognitae, descriptionibus a Dom. Leonardo Gyllenhal,
C. H. Boheman, et entomologis aliis illustratae, vol. 3(1). 505 pp. [1836]. Roret, Paris.
Hansen, M. 1996. Katalog over Danmarks biller (Catalogue of the Coleoptera of Denmark).
Entomologiske Meddelelser, 64:1—231.
Hansen, V. 1964. Fortegnelse over Danmarks biller (Coleoptera). Entomologiske Meddelelser,
33: 1-507.
Herbst, J.F.W. 1784. Kritisches Verzeichniss meiner Insektensammlung. [Cont.]. Archiv der
Insectengeschichte, 5(1): 73-128, pls. 25-28 (suppl.).
Herbst, J.F.W. 1795. Natursystem aller bekannten in- und ausldndischen Insekten, als eine
Fortsetzung der von Buffonschen Naturgeschichte. Fortgesetzt von Johann Friedrich
Wilhelm Herbst. Der Kdfer, vol. 6. 520, XXIV pp. Berlin, J. Pauli.
Hoffmann, A. 1958. Coléoptéres Curculionides (Troisiéme partie). Faune de France, vol. 62.
Pp. 1208-1839. Lechevalier, Paris.
Klima, A. 1934. Coleopterorum Catalogus auspiciis et auxilio W. Junk editus a S. Schenkling.
Pars 140. Curculionidae: Erirrhininae. 167 pp. Junk, ’s-Gravenhage.
Krivets, S.A. & Legalov, A.A. 2002. Obzor zukov nadsem. Curculionoidea (Coleoptera) fauny
Kemerovskoj oblasti. Entomologischeskoe Obozrenie, 81(2): 817-833.
Lohse, G.A. 1983. Notarinae (Erirhinae [sic]). Pp. 59-78 in Freude, H., Harde, K.W. & Lohse,
G.A. (Eds.), Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, Band 11. 324 pp. Krefeld, Goecke & Evers.
Morris, M.G. 2002. True Weevils (Part I): Family Curculionidae, subfamilies Raymondionymi-
nae to Smicronychinae, vol. 5, part 17b. 149 pp. The Royal Entomological Society of
London, London.
Pelletier, J. 2005. Catalogue de Curculionoidea de France (Coleoptera). Biocosme Mésogéen,
Nice, 21 [2004]: 75-147.
PeSi¢é, S. 2004. Weevils fauna (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea) of Gruza Reservoir, Central
Serbia. Kragujevac Journal of Science, 26: 115-130.
Rossi, P. 1790. Fauna Etrusca sistens insecta quae in povinciis Florentina et Pisana praesertim
collegit Petrus Rossius. Tomus secundus. 348 pp, Liburni, Masi.
Silfverberg, H. 1979. Enumeratio Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae. 79 pp. Elsingfors
Entomologiska Bytesforening, Helsinki.
Smreczynski, S. 1972. Ryikowce — Curculionidae: Podrozina Curculioninae,vol. 77 (XIX, 98d).
195 pp. Klucze do Oznaczania Owadow Polski, Warszawa.
Telnov, D. 2004. Compendium of Latvian Coleoptera. Check-list of Latvian beetles (Insecta
Coleoptera). 115 pp. Entomological Society of Latvia, Riga.
Tempére, G. & Péricart, J. 1989. Coléoptéres Curculionides. Quatriéme partie: complements.
In: Faune de France, vol. 74. 534 pp. Lechevalier, Paris.
Thompson, R.T. 2006. A revision of the weevil genus Procas Stephens (Coleoptera: Curculio-
noidea: Erirhinidae). Zootaxa, 1234: 1-63.
Wanat, M. & Moerzycki, T. 2005. A new checklist of the weevils of Poland (Coleoptera:
Curculionoidea). Genus, 16: 69-117.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 160.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 Dal
Case 3571
Crotalinus catenatus Rafinesque, 1818 (currently Sistrurus catenatus)
and Crotalus tergeminus Say in James, 1822 (currently Sistrurus
tergeminus; Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation of usage by
designation of neotypes for both species
Brian J. Crother
Department of Biology, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, LA
70402, U.S.A. (e-mail: bcrother@selu.edu)
Jay M. Savage
Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182,
U.S.A. (e-mail: savy1@cox.net)
Andrew T. Holycross
Mesa Community College, Red Mountain Campus, Mesa, AZ, 85207 U.S.A.
& School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287,
U.S.A. (e-mail: andrewholycross@gmail.com)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 78.1, 78.2.3 and 81 of the
Code, is to conserve the long and continuing usage of the specific name Crotalinus
catenatus Rafinesque, 1818 (currently Sistrurus catenatus) for a species of pygmy
rattlesnake by designation of a neotype. In addition, in order to will conserve the
nearly equally long and continuous usage of the name Crotalus tergeminus Say in
James, 1822 (currently Sistrurus tergeminus or Sistrurus catenatus tergeminus) for
another pygmy rattlesnake, the Commission is asked to designate a neotype for this
nominal species also. Newly found evidence indicates that the name Crotalinus
catenatus was based on a specimen of C. tergeminus, and to conserve the names of
both nominal taxa designation of neotypes for each is required.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Serpentes; Sistrurus; Sistrurus catena-
tus; Sistrurus tergeminus; rattlesnakes; North America.
1. Rafinesque (1818, p. 41) briefly described a new species of rattlesnake as
Crotalinus catenatus from ‘the prairies of the Upper Missouri’ in the Louisiana
Purchase of the United States. The name was based on a single specimen collected by
John Bradbury on the Wilson P. Hunt Expedition to the Pacific Coast. This name has
been used continuously since 1895 in the combination Sistrurus catenatus for a
species of pygmy rattlesnake. In addition, the name has been used from 1936 to date
for the subspecies Sistrurus catenatus catenatus, which ranges east of the Mississippi
River (Kubatko et al., 2011, p. 3).
2. Say in James (1822, p. 499) subsequently described Crotalus tergeminus based on
two pygmy rattlesnakes collected from an indefinite locality during the Long
D2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
Expedition to the Rocky Mountains in the western United States. This name has
been continuously used in the combination Sistrurus tergeminus or S. catenatus
tergeminus since Garman (‘1883’, 1884, pp. 118, 176) for a taxon found west of the
Mississippi River (Kubatko et al., p. 3). The James account is often cited as appearing
in 1823 but Woodman (2010, p. 28) has demonstrated that it was offered for sale in
late December, 1822.
3. Recently, Holycross et al. (2008, p. 422) presented evidence from Bradbury’s
(1817, p. 70) account of his travels that the holotype of Crotalinus catenatus was
collected on April 25, 1811, not on the prairies of the Upper Missouri but on the
floodplain of the Missouri River between the mouth of the Platte River and
modern-day Nebraska City, Nebraska, U.S.A. In fact there was a confusion of
locality data for this snake and another (Crotalinus viridis Rafinesque, 1811) collected
by Bradbury (1817, p. 147) and described from a single specimen that was stated by
Rafinesque (1811, p. 41) to have been from the ‘Upper Missouri.’ Holycross et al.
(2008, p. 422) provided evidence that the second snake was actually collected in what
is modern-day North Dakota. These authors further demonstrated that the type
locality of what is called Crotalinus catenatus is within the range of Sistrurus
catenatus tergeminus and not that of the form usually called S. c. catenatus. Under the
Principle of Priority (Article 23 of the Code), this makes Crotalinus catenatus a name
that cannot be applied to the eastern taxon because it is a senior synonym of Crotalus
tergeminus. While there can be no question regarding the identity of the holotype and
the type locality of Crotalinus catenatus, that specimen is no longer extant (Holycross,
2008, p. 422).
4. The situation is complicated by the lack of agreement concerning the provenance
of the syntypes of Crotalus tergeminus. It has been variously cited as indefinite
(Minton, 1983, p. 1; Gloyd, 1955, p. 92); between the Mississippi River and the
Rocky Mountains (Klauber, 1956, p. 50; McDiarmid et al. 1999, p. 325; Campbell
and Lamar, 2004, p. 609); between Plateville, Weld County, and just south of
Brighton, Adams County, northeastern Colorado [northeast of present day Denver]
(Dundee, ‘1996’, 1997, p. 81); or possibly along the Boyer River, in Harrison County,
Iowa (Dundee, ‘1996’, 1997, p. 8). To further complicate matters, there have been two
arbitrary restrictions of the type locality, by Smith and Taylor (1950, p. 358) to
Winfield, Cowley County, Kansas and by Schmidt (1953, p. 226) to the headwaters
of the Arkansas River. The syntypes of Crotalus tergeminus no longer exist. They
appear to have been part of the Charles Willson Peale Museum (the Philadelphia
Museum) collection, which was sold to P.T. Barnum in 1849. They were almost
certainly incinerated in the 1851 fire that destroyed Barnum’s Museum (Stroud, 1992,
1, 26)
5. If the name catenatus were to be applied to the western population the first
available name for the eastern taxon is Crotalus messasaugus Kirtland, 1838, no type
locality stated but certainly from the state of Ohio where Kirtland resided. Adler
(1963) suggested that a National Museum of Natural History, U.S.A. specimen
(USNM 526) collected from Mahoning County, Ohio by Kirtland might be the
holotype of this taxon. The name messasaugus has not been used as a valid name in
any publication post-1899 and its use would upset stability by replacing Sisturus
catenatus.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 arS
6. Kubatko et al. (2011, p. 13), apparently unfamiliar with the paper by Holycross
et al. (2008), suggested on the basis of a phylogenetic analysis that Sistrurus catenatus
and Sistrurus tergeminus be recognized as separate species.
7. Inasmuch as the names Sistrurus catenatus or S. c. catenatus and Sistrurus
tergeminus or S. c. tergeminus have appeared in approximately 1400 works by at least
250 authors since 1895 (Zoological Record 1895-2007), universality and stability
seem best served through action of the Commission to use its plenary power (Article
81 of the Code) to preserve prevailing usage by designating neotypes of known
provenance for the two taxa in question. The standard procedures of the Code
(Article 75) for neotype designation cannot be applied in this case because of the
constraint that any specimen selected to bear the name Crotalinus catenatus should
come from or near the original type locality (Article 75.3.6), which in that event
would lie within the geographic range of the taxon currently recognized as Sistrurus
catenatus tergeminus. In the case of Crotalus tergeminus it is not possible to ascertain
which of the several options might be the type locality. Therefore, it seems logical to
select a neotype from a definite locality near the route of the Long Expedition’s
return to the east from the Rocky Mountains down the course of the Arkansas River
where Sistrurus catenatus tergeminus is definitely known to occur. The latter action
could be accomplished in a separate publication as it does not require the action of
the Commission. However, under Article 78.2.3 of the Code, the Commission is
empowered to apply the provisions of the Code and issue an Opinion on any question
of zoological nomenclature, and we believe it would be most parsimonious for the
Commission to select neotypes for the two involved taxa at the same time.
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to designate specimen USNM 526 at the National
Museum of Natural History, U.S.A. from Poland, Mahoning County, Ohio,
U.S.A. as the neotype of Crotalinus catenatus Rafinesque, 1816;
(2) to use its specific powers to designate specimen USNM 86472 at the National
Museum of Natural History, U.S.A., from Winfield, Cowley, Kansas, U.S.A.
as the neotype of Crotalus tergeminus Say in James, 1822;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name catenatus
as published in the binomen Crotalinus catenatus Rafinesque, 1811, and as
defined by the neotype designated in (1)(a) above;
(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name tergeminus
as published in the binomen Crotalus tergeminus Say in James, 1822 and as
defined by the neotype designated in (1)(b) above.
References
Adler, K.K. 1963. The type locality of Crotalus messasaugus Kirtland. Journal of the Ohio
Herpetological Society, 4(1—2): 55—57.
Bradbury, J. 1817. Travels in the interior of America, in the years 1809, 1810, and 1811;
including a description of upper Louisiana together with the states of Ohio, Kentucky,
Indiana, and Tennessee, with the Illinois and western territories and containing remarks and
observations useful to persons emigrating to those countries. xii, 364 pp. Sherwood, Neely
& Jones, London.
Campbell, J.A. & Lamar, W.W. 2004. The venomous reptiles of the Western Hemisphere, vol.
2. xiv, 477-870 pp. [28], 614 pls. Comstock Pub. Associates, Ithaca [N.Y.].
274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
Dundee, H.A. ‘1996’, 1997. Some reallocations of type localities of reptiles and amphibians
described from the Major Stephen H. Long expedition to the Rocky Mountains, with
comments on some of the statements made in the account written by Edwin James. Tulane
Studies in Zoology and Botany, 30(2): 75-89.
Garman, S. ‘1883’, 1884. The reptiles and batrachians of North America. Memoirs of the
Museum of Comparative Zoology, 8(3): 1-185.
Gloyd, H.K. 1955. A review of the massasaugas, Sistrurus catenatus, of the southwestern
United States. Bulletin of the Chicago Academy of Sciences, 10(6): 83-98.
Holycross, A.T., Anton, T.G. Douglas, M.E. & Frost, D.R. 2008. The type localities of Sistrurus
catenatus and Crotalus viridis (Serpentes: Viperidae), with the unraveling of a most
unfortunate tangle of names. Copeia, 2008(2): 421-424.
James, E. (compiler) 1822. Account of an expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains,
performed in the years 1819 and ‘20, by order of the Hon. J. C. Calhoun, Sec’y of War:
under the command of Major Stephen H. Long. From the notes of Major Long, Mr. T. Say,
and other gentlemen of the exploring party. vol. 1. [ii], 502 pp. H.C. Carey & I. Lea,
Philadelphia.
Klauber, L.M. 1956. Rattlesnakes: Their habits, life histories, and influence on mankind, vol. 1.
xxix, 708 pp. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Kirtland, J.P. 1838. Report on the zoology of Ohio. Pp. 159-200 in Second Annual Report on
the Geological Survey of the state of Ohio. Columbus, Ohio.
Kubatko, L.S., Gibbs, H.L. & Bloomquist, E.W. 2011. Inferring species-level phylogenies and
taxonomic distinctiveness using multilocus data in Sistrurus rattlesnakes. Systematic
Biology, 60(4): 393-409.
McDiarmid, R.W., Campbell, J.A. & Toure, T.A. 1999. Snakes species of the world: A
taxonomic and geographic reference. xi, 511 pp. Herpetologists’ League, Washington, D.C.
Minton, S.A. 1983. Sistrurus catenatus (Rafinesque). Massasauga. Catalogue of American
Amphibians and Reptiles, 332.1—332.2.
Rafinesque, C.S. 1818. Farther account of discoveries in natural history, in the western states.
American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 4: 39-42.
Schmidt, K.P. 1953.4 check list of North American amphibians and reptiles. 280 pp. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Smith, H.M. & Taylor, E.H. 1950. Type localities of Mexican reptiles and amphibians.
University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 33 (8): 313-380
Stroud, P.T. 1992. Thomas Say: New World naturalist. xv, 340 pp. 9 pls. University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Woodman, N. 2010. History and dating of the publication of the Philadelphia (1822) and
London (1823) editions of the Edwin James’s Account of an expedition from Pittsburgh to
the Rocky Mountains. Archives of Natural History, 37(1): 28-38.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 160.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 275
Case 3563
Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948 (Primates, LEMURIDAE): proposed
conservation of the generic name
Jelle Zijlstra
Rijnzichtweg 153, 2342 AZ Oegstgeest, The Netherlands
(e-mail: jelle.zijlstra@college.harvard.edu)
Colin Groves
School of Archaeology & Anthropology, Building 14, Australian National
University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
(e-mail: Colin.Groves@anu.edu.au)
Alex Dunkel
7305 Calibre Park Dr. #102, Durham, NC, U.S.A.
(e-mail: visionholder@gmail.com)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3, 81.1 and 81.2.3 of the
Code, is to conserve the name Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948 (Primates, LEMURIDAE),
a genus of subfossil Malagasy lemurs, by suppressing the senior subjective synonym
Palaeochirogalus Grandidier, 1899 and by designating a type species for the genus
Pachylemur Lamberton. Palaeochirogalus Grandidier has never seen any substantial
usage whereas Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948 is in universal use; however, Pachylemur
Lamberton, 1948 is unavailable because no type species was designated in the original
publication. Filhol (1874) previously used the name Pachylemur for a ‘groupe’ of
Paleogene primates; we conclude that this name, under either Filhol’s or Palmer’s
(1904) authorship and, in either case, ambiguous as regards availability should be
formally suppressed at the genus-group level to prevent confusion.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; LEMURIDAE; Palaeochirogalus; Pachylemur;
Pachylemur insignis; lemur; Madagascar.
1. Filhol (1874, p. 18) introduced the name Pachylemur for a group of ancient
primate-like mammals: “Ce groupe, je proposerai de le désigner sous le nom de
Pachylemur, et j’y placerai le Paleolemur Bettillei, ’ Adapis, ’ Aphelotherium, animal
dont je viens de donner la description et les divers Lémuriens signalés jusqu’ici en
Amerique’. He called Pachylemur a ‘groupe’ (group) and ‘type zoologique’ (zoologi-
cal type) and explicitly included genera (‘genres’) within the ‘groupe’ (also Filhol,
1874, p. 18; outside the passage quoted above). Thus he apparently did not intend
Pachylemur as a generic name; the possibility remains, however, that it could be
construed as a generic name proposed for a series of taxa at subgeneric level. If
Pachylemur Filhol, 1874 is construed as a family-group name, it is unavailable in the
absence of an available type genus and because it is not a noun in the nominative
plural (Article 11.7.1.1 of the Code).
276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
2. Miall (1875, p. 267), in a Geological Record summary of Filhol’s paper, wrote
that Filhol had ‘ [p]ropose[d] a new group, Pachylemuride’. Under Article 11.7.1.1 of
the Code, the name PACHYLEMURIDAE Miall, 1875 is apparently unavailable because
it was not based on an available generic name and the type genus was not ‘a name
then used as valid in the new family-group taxon’. However, although Miall (1875)
clearly considered it to have been proposed for a taxon in the family-group, if
Pachylemur Filhol, 1874 were to be regarded as an available generic name, then under
Article 11.7.1.1 of the Code, the name PACHYLEMURIDAE Miall, 1875 may also be
available. Although this family name is not in current use under any authorship, its
ambiguous status may at some time become destabilizing.
3. Gervais (1876, p. 36) transferred the species Adapis magnus Filhol, 1874 (p. 18)
to a new genus. He considered using the name Pachylemur Filhol for this genus,
but rejected it and proposed the new name Leptadapis instead. Under Article
11.5, Pachylemur Gervais, 1876 is unavailable because it was not used as a valid
name.
4. Palmer (1904, p. 494), in his Index generum mammalium, listed ‘Pachylemur
Gervais, 1876’, and wrote that Filhol (1874) had used Pachylemur as a family. On
p. 890, he listed the type of Pachylemur as Adapis magnus Filhol, but provided a
cross-reference to Leptadapis. As Palmer (1904, p. 10) indicated, his work lists
both synonyms and valid names without distinguishing them, so the presence of
Pachylemur in his index does not constitute evidence that he used the name as valid.
Palmer (1904, p. 785) wrote that he had included cross-references with at least some
synonyms listed in Part HI of his work; thus, the cross-reference to Leptadapis on
p. 890 (in Part HI) further suggests that he did not use Pachylemur as valid. If
not, Pachylemur Palmer, 1904 is unavailable under Article 11.5 of the Code; however,
the evidence is ambiguous, and a ruling by the Commission on its unavailability
is desired. Palmer (1904, pp. 760, 890) also listed the family-group name
PACHYLEMURIDAE, but if its type genus Pachylemur was not used as valid, this family
name is unavailable under Article 11.7.1.1 of the Code.
5. Some other authors, mainly in the 19th and early 20th centuries (e.g. Flower,
1876 and various reprints of that paper; Claus, 1883), have mentioned Pachylemur
Filhol or one of its derivatives, but we know of none that could be construed to have
made the name available.
6. Grandidier (1899, p. 345) named a new genus and species of subfossil lemur as
‘Paleochirogalus Jully? (here corrected to Palaeochirogalus jullyi following Articles
5.1 and 32.5.2.5 of the Code). Some subsequent authors used the genus name as valid
(e.g. Lorenz von Liburnau, 1901), and Smith (1903, pp. 324, 336, 508) recombined it
as Lemur jullyi. Grandidier (1905, p. 78) then synonymised his Palaeochirogalus jullyi
with Lemur insignis Filhol, 1895. As far as we are aware, Palaeochirogalus has not
been used as a valid name in the taxonomic literature since 1905. In the meantime,
Standing (1904, p. 306) had named a new species, Lemur jullyi, without mentioning
Grandidier’s species of the same name.
7. Lamberton (1948, p. 7) proposed Pachylemur as a new subgeneric name for the
extinct species Lemur insignis, L. majori Standing, 1908 and L. jullyi, without
mentioning either Pachylemur Filhol or Palaeochirogalus. He did not specify whether
his ‘Lemur jully? was based on Palaeochirogalus jullyi Grandidier or Lemur jullyi
Standing. Lamberton did not designate a type species, and the name is therefore
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 277
unavailable under Article 13.3 of the Code; nevertheless, many subsequent authors
have used it (see below). Although it was originally proposed as a subgenus and
recognized as such until the 1970s, most authors have recognized Pachylemur
Lamberton as a valid genus since Tardieu & Jouffroy (1979). Tattersall (1982,
pp. 240-241) discussed the nomenclature of the two species of Pachylemur: a smaller
species from southern lowland Madagascar, Lemur insignis Filhol, 1895, and a larger
species from the Central Highlands, known as Lemur jullyi Standing, 1904 (by then
including Lemur majori Standing, 1908). He argued that Palaeochirogalus jullyi
Grandidier (which had previously been seen as a synonym of L. insignis) was in fact
probably conspecific with Lemur jullyi Standing, which it also preoccupies. There-
fore, he attributed Lemur jullyi to Grandidier (1899) instead. Most workers since then
have also recognized two species, P. insignis (Filhol, 1895) and P. jullyi (Grandidier,
1899), although some have expressed doubts that the two are specifically distinct
(reviewed by Godfrey & Jungers, 2002; Godfrey et al., 2010).
8. The name Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948, is now in universal usage in the
scientific literature about lemurs for Lemur insignis Filhol, 1895 and related species
(e.g. Godfrey et al., 1990; Jungers et al., 1991; Simons et al., 1995; Jungers et al., 1995;
Godfrey et al., 1995; Shoshani et al., 1996; Godfrey & Jungers, 2002; Burney et al.,
2004; Perez et al., 2005; Shapiro et al., 2005; Godfrey & Irwin, 2007; Burney et al.,
2008; Orlando et al., 2008; Mittermeier et al., 2008; Gommery et al., 2009; Polk
et al., 2009; Turvey, 2009; Godfrey et al., 2010; Virah-Sawmy et al., 2010; Crowley
et al., 2011). Unlike some other extinct and extant lemur genera, Pachylemur lacks a
well-established common name. If the name were to be replaced because it is predated
by Palaeochirogalus, or preoccupied by one of the older uses of Pachylemur, or
simply unavailable, it would cause considerable confusion and instability. The name
Palaeochirogalus would be an especially unfortunate replacement for Pachylemur,
since it is based on the generic name of the dwarf lemurs, Cheirogaleus Geoffroy,
1812; this name was frequently spelled Chirogalus in the 19th century and Grandidier
(1899) himself used the French vernacular form ‘Chirogales’. Pachylemur is no longer
considered to be closely related to the dwarf lemurs, which are now placed in a
different family. The two most pressing threats to prevailing usage are the subjec-
tive senior synonym Palaeochirogalus Grandidier, 1899 and the unavailability of
Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948. Since Pachylemur of Filhol, 1874 could perhaps be
construed as having been proposed at genus-group level, it should be suppressed.
Pachylemur of Gervais and family-group names based on it are clearly not available,
so we do not request action from the Commission concerning these names.
Pachylemur Palmer may be interpreted as only questionably unavailable; hence its
suppression is requested. By suppressing both Pachylemur Filhol, 1874 and Pachy-
lemur Palmer, 1904 at the genus level, the family-level names PACHYLEMURIDAE Miall,
1875 and PACHYLEMURIDAE Palmer, 1904, even if either is regarded as available, will
become invalid under Article 39 of the Code. We propose that prevailing usage of the
generic name be maintained by retroactively making the name Pachylemur Lamber-
ton, 1948 available, and suppressing Palaeochirogalus Gandidier. No type species of
Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948 has apparently ever been designated; we request that
the Commission designate Lemur insignis Filhol, 1895 as the type species, as it was
the first species of the genus to be described and the only one to be recognized as valid
by all authors (e.g. Tattersall, 1973).
278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power:
(a) to suppress the following generic names for the purposes of both the
Principle of Priority and Principle of Homonymy;
(i) Pachylemur Filhol, 1874;
(ii) Pachylemur Palmer, 1904;
(b) to suppress the generic name Palaeochirogalus Grandidier, 1899 for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy;
(c) to rule that the name Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948 is available from its
original publication;
(d) to set aside all previous type species fixations for Pachylemur Lamberton,
1948 and designate Lemur insignis Filhol, 1895 as the type species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948, type species Lemur insignis Filhol, 1895, as ruled
in (1)(c) and (1)(d) above;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name insignis
Filhol, 1895, as published in the binomen Lemur insignis, specific name of the
type species of Pachylemur Lamberton, 1948, as ruled in (1)(d) above.
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the following names:
(a) Pachylemur Filhol, 1874, as suppressed in (1)(a)(i) above;
(b) Pachylemur Palmer, 1904, as suppressed in (1)(a)(i1) above;
(c) Palaeochirogalus Grandidier, 1899, as suppressed in (1)(b) above.
References
Burney, D.A., Burney, L.P., Godfrey, L.R., Jungers, W.L., Goodman, S.M., Wright, H.T. &
Jull, A.J.T. 2004. A chronology for late prehistoric Madagascar. Journal of Human
Evolution, 47: 25-63.
Burney, D.A., Vasey, N., Godfrey, L.R., Ramilisonina, Jungers, W.L., Ramarolahy, M. &
Raharivony, L. 2008. New findings at Andrahomana cave, southeastern Madagascar.
Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, 70: 13-24.
Claus, C. 1883. Lehrbuch der Zoologie. 857 pp. N. G. Elwert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
Marburg & Leipzig.
Crowley, B.E., Godfrey, L.R. & Irwin, M.T. 2011. A glance to the past: subfossils, stable
isotopes, seed dispersal, and lemur species loss in Southern Madagascar. American Journal
of Primatology, 73: 25-37.
Filhol, H. 1874. Nouvelles observations sur les mammiféres des gisements de phosphates de
chaux (Lémuriens et Pachylémuriens). Annales des Sciences Géologiques, 5: 1-36.
Filhol, H. 1895. Observations concernant les Mammiféres contemporains des Apyornis a
Madagascar. Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 1: 12-14.
Flower, W.H. 1876. Extinct Lemurina. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (14)17:
323-328.
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E. 1812. Note sur trois dessins de Commercon, représentant des
quadrumanes d’un genre inconnu. Annales du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle,
Paris, 19: 171-175.
Gervais, P. 1876. Zoologie et paléontologie générales. Deuxiéme série. 72 pp. Arthus Bertrand,
Libraire-Editeur, Libraire de la Société de Géographie, Paris.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 279
Godfrey, L.R. & Irwin, M.T. 2007. The evolution of extinction risk: past and present
anthropogenic impacts on the primate communities of Madagascar. Folia Primatologica,
78: 405-419.
Godfrey, L.R. & Jungers, W.L. 2002. Quaternary fossil lemurs. Jn Hartwig, W.C. (Ed.), The
primate fossil record. 530 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Godfrey, L.R., Jungers, W.L. & Burney, D.A. 2010. Subfossil lemurs of Madagascar. In
Werdelin, L.& Sanders, W.J. (Eds.), Cenozoic mammals of Africa. 986 pp. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California.
Godfrey, L.R., Simons, E.L., Chatrath, P.J. & Rakotosamimanana, B. 1990. A new fossil lemur
(Babakotia, Primates) from northern Madagascar. Comptes Rendus de I’ Académie des
Sciences, (2)310: 81-87.
Godfrey, L.R., Sutherland, M.R., Paine, R.R., Williams, F.L., Boy, D.S. & Vuillaume-
Randriamanantena, M. 1995. Limb joint surface areas and their ratios in Malagasy lemurs
and other mammals. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 97: 11-36.
Gommery, D., Ramanivosoa, B., Tombomiadana-Raveloson, S., Randrianantenaina, H. &
Kerloc’h, P. 2009. Une nouvelle espéce de Iémurien géant subfossile du Nord-Ouest de
Madagascar (Palaeopropithecus kelyus, Primates). Comptes Rendus Palevol, 8: 47 1-480.
Grandidier, G. 1899. Description d’ossements de Lémuriens disparus. Bulletin du Muséum
National d’ Histoire Naturelle, 5: 344-348.
Grandidier, G. 1905. Recherches sur les lémuriens disparus et en particulier sur ceux qui
vivaient 4 Madagascar. Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, (4)7: 1-142.
Jungers, W.L., Godfrey, L.R., Simons, E.L. & Chatrath, P.S. 1995. Subfossil Indri indri
from the Ankarana Massif of northern Madagascar. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, 97: 357-366.
Jungers, W.L., Godfrey, L.R., Simons, E.L., Chatrath, P.S. & Rakotosamimanana, B. 1991.
Phylogenetic and functional affinities of Babakotia (Primates), a fossil lemur from
northern Madagascar. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 88: 9082-9086.
Lamberton, C. 1948. Contribution a la connaissance de la faune subfossile de Madagascar:
Note XVII. Les Pachylemurs. Bulletin de ! Académie Malgache, (n.s.)27: 7-22.
Lorenz von Liburnau, L. 1901. Uber einige Reste ausgestorbener Primaten von Madagaskar.
Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, _Mathematisch-
Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, 70: 1-15.
Miall, L.C. 1875. [Review of] Filhol, M. H. Nouvelles observations sur les Mammifeéres des
gisements de phosphates de chaux (Lémuriens et Pachylémuriens). [Mammals from the
phosphate-of-lime deposits.] Ann. Sci. Geol. t. v. art. 4, pp. 1-36, plates 7, 8. Jn Whitaker,
W. (Ed.), The geological record for 1874, an account of works on geology, mineralogy, and
palaeontology published during the year. 397 pp. Taylor and Francis, London.
Mittermeier, R.A., Ganzhorn, J.U., Konstant, W.R., Glander, K., Tattersall, I., Groves, C.P.,
Rylands, A.B., Hapke, A., Ratsimbazafy, J., Mayor, M.I, Louis, E.E., Jr., Rumpler, Y.,
Schwitzer, C. & Rasoloarison, R.M. 2008. Lemur diversity in Madagascar. International
Journal of Primatology, 29: 1607-1656.
Orlando, L., Calvignac, S., Schnebelen, C., Douady, C.J., Godfrey, L.R. & Hanni, C. 2008.
DNA from extinct giant lemurs links archaeolemurids to extant indriids. BMC Evolu-
tionary Biology, 8: \-9.
Palmer, T.S. 1904. Index generum mammalium. A list of the genera and families of mammals.
North American Fauna, 23: 1-984.
Perez, V., Godfrey, L., Nowakkemp, M., Burney, D., Ratsimbazafy, J. & Vasey, N. 2005.
Evidence of early butchery of giant lemurs in Madagascar. Journal of Human Evolution,
49: 722-742.
Polk, J.D., Williams, S.A., Peterson, J.V., Roseman, C.C. & Godfrey, L.R. 2010. Subchondral
bone apparent density and locomotor behavior in extant primates and subfossil lemurs
Hadropithecus and Pachylemur. International Journal of Primatology, 31: 275-299.
Shapiro, L.J., Seiffert, C.V., Godfrey, L.R., Jungers, W.L., Simons, E.L. & Randria, G.F. 2005.
Morphometric analysis of lumbar vertebrae in extinct Malagasy strepsirrhines. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology, 128: 823-839.
280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
Shoshani, J., Groves, C.P., Simons, E.L. & Gunnell, G.F. 1996. Primate phylogeny: morpho-
logical vs molecular results. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 5: 102-154.
Simons, E.L., Godfrey, L.R., Jungers, W.L., Chatrath, P.S. & Ravaoarisoa, J. 1995. A new
species of Mesopropithecus (Primates: Palaeopropithecidae) from northern Madagascar.
International Journal of Primatology, 16: 653-682.
Smith, G.E. 1903. On the morphology of the brain in the Mammalia, with special reference to
that of the lemurs, recent and extinct. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London,
Zoology, (2)8: 319-432.
Standing, H.F. 1904. Rapport sur des ossements sub-fossiles provenant d’Ampasambazibma.
1. — Les Lémuriens (Suite). Bulletin de Académie Malgache, 3: 305-310.
Tardieu, C. & Jouffroy, F.K. 1979. Les surfaces articulaires fémorales du genou chez les
Primates: étude préliminaire. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie, (13)1: 23-38.
Tattersall, I. 1973. Cranial anatomy of the Archaeolemurinae (Lemuroidea, Primates).
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 52: 1-110.
Tattersall, I. 1982. The Primates of Madagascar. 382 pp. Columbia University Press, New
York.
Turvey, S.T. 2009. Holocene mammal extinctions. Jn Turvey, S.T. (Ed.), Holocene extinctions.
352 pp. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Virah-Sawmy, M., Willis, K.J. & Gillson, L. 2010. Evidence for drought and forest declines
during the recent megafaunal extinctions in Madagascar. Journal of Biogeography, 37:
506-5 19.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 68: 94.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 281
Comment on CHILODONTIDAE Macalister, 1876 (Ciliophora), CHILODONTINAE
Eigenmann, 1910 (Pisces, Characiformes) and CHILODONTINAE Wenz, 1938
(Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed resolution of homonymy between family-group
names
(Case 3555; see BZN 68: 175-179)
D.L. Geiger
Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 2559 Puesta del Sol Road,
Santa Barbara, CA 93105, U.S.A. (e-mail: geiger@vetigastropoda.com)
The central issue is whether the emendation of the fish family-level name is justified.
It becomes a balancing act between two principles of zoological nomenclature:
original intent vs. stability. In the case of the fish family CHILODIDAE Eigenmann, 1910
[original spelling], there is no indication that the family name was malformed in the
original description. The subsequent arguments cited in Case 3555 are at best
adventurous and could just as well be considered an unjustified emendation.
For the fish type-genus Chilodus Miiller & Troschel, 1844, there is no perceptible
reference to teeth. Generally in nomenclature, much deference is given to the original
spelling, even if it might be at slight variance to traditional linguistics. An example is
the alternate spelling of silva and sylva for the Latin ‘forest’; the letter y is unknown
in the classical Latin alphabet, but spellings with y are maintained (e.g. Scissurella
transylvanica Reuss, 1860). Or consider the case of Scissurella evaensis Bandel, 1998
with locative suffix —ensis, although the species was explicitly named for Mrs Eva
Vinx. Geiger (2003) as first reviser explicitly retained the original spelling as it was
carried out consistently. The argument that the diphtong —ou is equivalent to —u is
one interpretation of the Code (Article 29.3.2). An alternate interpretation is the
significant single letter variance (Article 58 Example). Whether —odus or —us is the
correct suffix is a further issue, as chil- as well as chilod- are equally good prefixes. The
Code does not require the names to be formal, grammatically correct derivations,
they do not need to convey meaning in any specific language (e.g. fish genus
Abudefduf, snail genus J/ttibittium), they only need to sound Latin. Chilodus with root
Chilod- meets those criteria. While the —u-/-ou- equivalence may be supported by
additional data in other type-genera of fish families, it is not sufficient to extend this
observation to all such generic names ending in -odus. Nomenclature is based on the
examination of individual cases, not the overextension of select observations.
In summary, the simpler construct in agreement with the original spelling with the
fewest unsupported, ad-hoc assumptions should be chosen as basis for the formation
of names. The linguistic argument for the emendation of the fish family name has to
be dismissed.
If the fish name is accepted as outlined in Case 3555, it sets a dangerous precedent
for more nomenclatural alterations at the whim of subsequent authors. If the
emended fish spelling should be maintained by the Commission, then it should be
made clear in the accompanying Opinion that the emendation is unjustified, and that
it is retained solely in the interest of stability. One could even debate the argument of
stability, as one name — Mollusca or fish — has to be changed, but there is only a 12
year difference between the certainly properly formed molluscan name by Wenz
(1938) and the emendation of the fish family in 1950. One may argue that the already
282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
emended name should be further modified, whereas the certainly properly formed
one 1s to be retained in its original spelling. If it is accepted that the already emended
fish name should be modified, it would be most appropriate to revert to the original
spelling of Eigenmann, serving at once the purpose of removing homonymy and
respecting original intent.
In conclusion, I advocate the reversion of the fish family name to the original
CHILODIDAE, retaining the molluscan CHILODONTIDAE unchanged, and placing the
unused protistan CHILODONTIDAE on the Official Index.
Additional references
Geiger, D.L. 2003. Phylogenetic assessment of characters proposed for the generic classifica-
tion of Recent Scissurellidae (Gastropoda: Vetigastropoda) with description of one new
genus and six new species from Easter Island and Australia. Molluscan Research, 23:
21-83.
Comment on Pleurotoma scabriuscula Brugnone, 1862 (currently Mangelia
scabriuscula; Mollusca, Gastropoda, CONOIDEA): proposed conservation
(Case 3558; see BZN 68: 180-183)
Riccardo Giannuzzi Savelli
Via Mater Dolorosa, 54, Palermo, Italy (e-mail: malakos@tin.1t)
Francesco Pusater1
Via Castellana 64, 90135 Palermo, Italy (e-mail: francesco@pusatet1.it)
We strongly support the application of Scarponi et al. and we fully agree with their
well presented considerations. We consider it to be of primary interest to maintain the
stability of nomenclature.
Comments on Cornu Born, 1778 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Pulmonata, HELICIDAE):
request for a ruling on the availability of the generic name
Case 3518; (see BZN 68: 97-104)
(1) Dietrich Kadolsky
66 Heathhurst Road, Sanderstead, Surrey CR2 OBA, U.K.
(e-mail: kadolsky@btsgeo.com )
I agree with Cowie’s interpretation of Article 1.3.2 of the Code, and his application
of this Article to the name Cornu Born, 1778. Consequently, I support fully his
proposals. The endorsement by the ICZN of this genus-group name as being valid
would be most conducive to the stability of the genus name of this very common land
snail, as Cornu is the most senior name of those potentially involved.
A few details may be added to the application:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 283
A live scalarid specimen of Cornu aspersum resembling the specimen described and
figured by Born (1778) was figured by Bailey (2006, p. 12). Schileyko (2006, p. 1817,
fig. 2330B) illustrates a syntype of Cornu copiae Born.
Additional references:
Bailey, B. 2006. Scalariform Canthareus [sic] aspersus. The Malacologist. Bulletin of the
Malacological Society of London, 47: 12.
Schileyko, A.A. 2006 (’XI. 2005’). Treatise on recent terrestrial pulmonate molluscs. Ruthenica,
Supplement, 2(14): 1907-2047.
(2) Cristian R. Altaba
Department of Philosophy and Social Work, University of the Balearic
Islands, 07122 Palma, Balearic Islands, Spain
(e-mail: cristianr.altaba@uib.cat)
Why it is Cryptomphalus, not Cornu
The land snail described as Helix aspersa Miiller, 1774 (included in the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology by Opinion 336, Opinions and Declarations, 10:
77-108, March 1955) is native to a small area in the central Mediterranean, but has
long been introduced throughout most of western and central Europe, and more
recently into virtually all temperate areas (Barker, 1999; Madec et al., 2003). It is
usually abundant, and is indeed an economically relevant species, both as food and
as an agricultural pest. That this species is currently referred to in the zoological
literature by no less than four generic assignments (letting aside misspellings) is surely
problematic. Some of the reasons for this situation are taxonomic, but nomenclature
is also a key issue. Recently, Cowie (BZN 68: 97-104) has proposed that the wording
of Article 1.3.2 be interpreted to confirm the availability of Cornu Born, 1778.
Herewith I show that there are no grounds or need for any such ruling.
The distinctiveness of Helix aspersa relative to Helix pomatia Linnaeus, 1758 (type
of Helix Linnaeus, 1758) was clearly stated by Charpentier (1837) when erecting
Cryptomphalus, and thoroughly documented by Moquin-Tandon (1855), who used it
as subgenus. This combination Helix (Cryptomphalus) aspersa has been used by
many subsequent authors (Bofill & Haas, 1919a, 1919b, 1920; Bofill et al., 1920;
Germain, 1930; Degner, 1930; Webb, 1943; Pilsbry, 1940; Renoux & Quatrefarges,
1951; Sparks, 1952; Colom, 1957; Zilch, 1960; Giusti, 1969; Bizot, 1971; Bequaert &
Miller, 1973; Damjanov & Likharev, 1975; Backhuys, 1975; Manga-Gonzalez &
Cordero del Campillo, 1979; Hartwig et al., 1980; Hueto et al., 1982; Manga-
Gonzalez, 1983; Altimira Aleu & Altaba, 1985; Mas-Coma & Montoliu, 1987;
Morrondo & Manga, 1989; Ferreri, 1994; Manga & Morrondo-Pelayo, 1994;
Gracenea & Gonzalez-Moreno, 2002). Recognizing conspicuous differences with the
various species included in Helix s.s., genus rank for Cryptomphalus has also been
widely used, either as Cryptomphalus aspersus (Haas, 1918, 1924a,b, 1929; Aguilar-
Amat, 1929, 1933; Colom, 1954; Espafiol i Cabeza, 1969; Jaeckel, 1969; Mercadal et
al., 1970; Gasull, 1972; Parisi & Gandolfi, 1974; Gasull & Alcover, 1982; Falkner,
1990, 1993; Frank, 1995; Cossignani & Cossignani, 1995; Turner et al., 1998; Gallo,
1998; Baminger & Haase, 1999; Kerney et al., 1999; Robinson, 1999, 2001; Badii &
284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
Flores, 2001; Bojat et al., 2001; Scarabino, 2003; Yildrim et al., 2004; Kiss et al., 2004;
Campos & Calvo, 2006; Schileyko, 2006; Sverlova, 2006; Hubenov, 2007; Egorov,
2008; Sysoev & Shileyko, 2009), without gender agreement (Cryptomphalus aspersa:
Goeden, 1974; Paniagua & Vazquez, 1976; Flores et al., 1986a, b, 1988, 1992; Faus,
1988; Dedov, 1998; Trib6 et al., 1999; Brieva et al., 2008; Leonov, 2009), or with
various misspellings (such as Criptomphalus aspersus: Ortiz de Zarate Lopez, 1991).
The above references are by no means the outcome of an exhaustive search; but they
suffice to show that the majority of authors from a wide variety of specialties and
countries have placed H. aspersa within Cryptomphalus. The discovery of a single
synapomorphy in the internal structure of the male genitalia shared by H. aspersa
with H. aperta Born, 1778 (type of Cantareus Risso, 1826) enabled Giusti et al. (1996)
to synonymize Cryptomphalus as junior synonym, thus proposing the combination
Cantareus aspersus. This has been followed by some authors (Neubert, 1998; Barker,
1999; Koene & Schulenburg, 2005; Manganelli et al., 2005; Wade et al., 2006, 2007;
Ansart et al., 2007; Groenenberg et al., in press). However, lumping H. aspersa and
H. aperta within Cantareus on the basis of a single shared trait ignores the
conspicuous differences in general morphology, external appearance and ecology
between these two species (already shown by Moquin-Tandon, 1855), and is at odds
with the tendency to recognize small genera within HELICOIDEA by those same
authors. At any rate, using Cantareus aspersus is a taxonomic decision that may not
be sound but is in agreement with the Code.
As shown by molecular studies (Manganelli et al., 2005; Groenenberg et al., in
press), H. aspersa and H. aperta are indeed closely related taxa. The closest genus to
this clade is Eobania Hesse, 1913, while Helix proper is more distantly related. This
is relevant in biogeographic terms. The group formed by Eobania, Cryptomphalus
and Cantareus is native to southernmost Italy and Sicily. Remarkably, this area
exported several land snail species throughout the Mediterranean already in Ancient
times (Altaba, 2000). An implication for nomenclature is that the all-too-usual, surely
Code-compliant, attractively simple option of leaving Helix aspersa within Helix
(while accepting the validity of the very distinctive Eobania, which nobody appears to
question) just doesn’t agree with a natural taxonomy.
In the curiosities vogue of 18th century natural history cabinets, Born (1778) gave
notorious relevance to an open-coiled terrestrial shell — it is the only figured specimen
in a final color plate where it is shown in two views; (this plate is actually referred to
in the text, contrary to the statement by Cowie (BZN 68: 97—104)). Obviously it was
considered a nature’s wonder. Indeed, in the preface he warns the reader that he has
strictly followed the Linnaean system (‘Eas Conchyliorum species, quas Linnaei
systema haud completitur, methodo, summo huic vir usitata, descripsi. . .”), refraining
from any alternative, in order to highlight the rarest of nature’s objects (‘in iis rarum
et singulare admirandum est’). Thus he named the open-coiled shell Cornu copiae —
an obvious word game referring to the shape of such unique a specimen. In its
description, Born (p. 372) states that maybe this is different from Miiller’s (1774)
species 313 (more explicit in the German text: ‘Dadurch unterscheidet sie sich als eine
besondere Art von einer, welcher Seba und Argenville und vielleicht auch von der,
welcher Otto Miiller gedenket.’). The latter is Helix scalaris (Miller, 1774, pp.
113-114), described as a shell having the color and texture of H. pomatia, yet truly
splendidly distinct from other of its kind by its shape (‘Testa colore & substantia H.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 285
Pomatiae, figura vero a congeneribus splendide distincta. . .’). Miller refers to a figure
in Argenville (1757, pl. 9, fig. 8 and p. 82), stating that his ‘species’ is not the same
as that shown there, because the soft parts depicted in that figure are rather those of
an aquatic snail. Indeed, Argenville’s figure (reproduced also in the posthumous third
edition of his work in 1780, Pl. LX XVI, fig. L) shows an (almost) open-coiled H.
aspersa from whose aperture an abnormal head-foot pops out — likely as a pictorial
indication of the teratological nature of such specimen. These soft parts are reported
as most unusual: ‘I] paroit que cet animal se partage en deux parties: dans l’une est
son col, avec sa téte garnie de deux cornes, & de ses yeux en dehors; dans l’autre est
situé le reste de son corps terminé par un opercule’ (Argenville, 1762, p. 82). At any
rate, the soft parts of this open-coiled land snail in Argenville (1757, 1780) are surely
invented, and thus Miller (1774) was wrong in maintaining that his H. scalaris was
different from the shell in that figure. It appears also that Miller was fully aware of
the fact that the traits separating his H. scalaris from other specimens of its kind (i.e.
conspecific individuals of H. aspersa) were of a unique, individual nature. Likewise,
Born’s Cornu copiae appears to be a junior synonym of H. scalaris. In a later edition,
Born (1780) kept placing great value on his Cornu copiae, this time illustrating it, also
in two views, inside an elaborate frame. Judging from the figures published by Born,
Cornu copiae could be a teratological individual of either H. pomatia or H. aspersa,
or even Eobania vermiculata (Miller, 1774). However, because from its description it
appears to be the same as H. scalaris Miller, 1774, and given that the latter was
clearly stated to be an individual, albeit splendid aberration, it follows that Cornu
copiae is indeed based on a teratological specimen that was known as such. Thus, the
binomen Cornu copiae is objectively not valid according to Article 1.3.2 of the Code
and there is no need for either Schileyko’s (2006) claim that is should be considered
a nomen oblitum (correctly dismissed by Cowie, BZN 68: 97-104), or Cowie’s
proposal.
The teratological nature of Cornu copiae was unanimously agreed upon by all
workers during nearly two centuries. The opinions of Deshayes (1832, 1838), Beck
(1838), Gray (1847), Forbes & Hanley (1853) and Taylor (1910) are reviewed by
Cowie (BZN 68: 97-104), but it is worth adding a few more. Pfeiffer (1841) didn’t
mention it, even when dealing with other parts of Born’s books. Later on, Pfeiffer
(1848, p. 242) was exhaustive and thus listed under Helix aspersa its ‘var. 6’, a
monstrosity with detached whorls that fits exactly what Born (1780) showed
(‘Monstrosa, scalaris vel anfractibus omino solutis: Born Mus. t. 13. f.10.11.’). Leach
(1852, Pl. II, fig. 2) shows a live individual of the very rare “open-turreted variety’.
Germain (1930, p. 35) mentioned indeed (against Cowie’s statement) the cornucopia
monstrosity that occasionally affects large helicids: ‘Enfin, exceptionnellement, la
coquille, entiérement déroulée, affecte assez nettement la forme d’une corne
d’abondance; elle est cératoide (Helix pomatia L., H. aspersa Mill.).’ Gasull (1972,
lam. 1, fig. 1) showed a cornucopioid Cryptomphalus aspersus from Mallorca.
The proposal to use Cornu (as subgenus) instead of its purported junior synonym
Cryptomphalus was first made by Pilsbry (1948: 1091). As Cowie (BZN 68: 97-104)
points out, the lack of followers to this claim may have been due to this being stated
in the ‘Additions and Corrections’ at the very end of his monumental work.
However, what Pilsbry actually says about Cornu is relevant: “This name was not
used in my text because I thought that a genus founded on an abnormal specimen is
286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
Fig. 1. Cornucopioid Cryptomphalus aspersus (Miiller, 1774). Left, type specimen of Cornu copiae Born,
1778 in the Natur historisches Museum Wien (37.4 mm) (courtesy of Anita Escher, curator of molluscs).
Right, specimen in the Salvador Cabinet (ca. 1750), at the Botanical Institute of Barcelona (36.3 mm).
invalid. However, nothing in the International code seems to exclude such names.’
This is exactly what Article 1.3.2 of the current Code addresses. As shown above,
Cornu copiae was indeed intended for a teratological specimen as such (contrary to
the claim by Cowie, BZN 68: 97-104).
The second stand to resurrect Cornu was by Waldén (1976). This apparently stems
from a mistaken, superficial reading of Born’s work, without considering the
above-mentioned references given therein to previous works. The same error was
made by Gerber (2000), who claimed that Born considered Cornu copiae a valid and
distinct species. Gerber makes an untenable leap between the modern concept of
biological species and the individual curiosity named by Born during the Enlightment
era of natural history cabinets. This was followed uncritically by Falkner et al. (2001).
Likewise, Roth & Sadeghian (2003) backed the use of Cornu, having failed to find any
evidence of an indication of the teratological nature of Cornu copiae in distinction to
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 287
other individuals of the same species (ignoring the reference to Miiller’s H. scalaris).
Anderson (2005) justified the use of Cornu based on both the previous choice by
Walden (1976) and the apparent need for a genus-level name for H. aspersa: ‘The
generic name for the common garden snail has been a source of controversy for some
time. At least three alternatives are circulating in the literature, including Cantareus
Risso and Cryptomphalus Charpentier, which are now generally applied to species in
different helicid clades from aspersa.’ However, this is incorrect, because H. aspersa
is indeed the type of Cryptomphalus. Thus, nothing actually sustains the purported
availability of Cornu. It is troublesome that such an error can slip into regional
species lists with such ease (e.g. Falkner et al., 2001; Roth & Sadeghian, 2003; Stanisic
et al. 2010). Nevertheless, a few publications can still be found where the name Cornu
aspersum is actually used (see references in Cowie, BZN 68: 97-104).
Without taking into account the reference to previous works, and looking only at
the figures by Born (1778, 1780), Cornu copiae could in fact be any cornucopioid
specimen belonging to the group formed by Helix s.s., Cryptomphalus, Cantareus and
Eobania. Remarkably, none of the proponents of Cornu appear to have actually
examined any type material. Fortunately, the holotype of Cornu copiae is extant.
Thanks to Anita Escher, Curator of Mollusks at the Natural History Museum in
Vienna, it has been located (Fig. 1, left). Inside the aperture, the word ‘Born’ is
written in ink. It is indeed an open-coiled (i.e. “cornucopioid’) specimen of Helix
aspersa. The accompanying label refers to its teratological nature as already indicated
by Pfeiffer (1841), who may have actually studied this type specimen.
A remarkably similar specimen exists in the Salvador Cabinet, now housed at the
Botanical Institute of Barcelona (IBB). This cabinet (Camarasa Castillo, 2004;
Ibafiez, 2006) was built by three generations of the enlightened Salvador family. The
cabinet was closed in 1854, the shell collection is still in good condition and retains
many of the original labels. A preliminary inventory of this malacological collection
showed that it contains specimens originating in many distant countries (Hernandez
et al., 2003). Indeed, it was mentioned by Argenville (1780, p. 314) as one of the most
important natural history cabinets of his time. The Salvadors maintained an intense
exchange of letters and specimens with naturalists of all Europe, including Linnaeus
— who named the plant genus Salvadora after them. Also preserved are documents
relative to the acquisition of shells from James Petiver and Hans Sloane — who
acquired several important natural history collections and left his own to be the
origin of the British Museum. I have examined the Salvador Cabinet thanks to the
kind interest of its custodians, Josep Montserrat, Neus Ibafiez and staff at IBB. A
central cell in one of the shell drawers contains two odd H. aspersa specimens: a
scalariform (very high-spired but with whorls attached) and a cornucopioid. The
latter has its apex broken, but is surprisingly similar to the holotype of Cornu copiae
in Vienna (Fig. 1, right). The accompanying label, written in Spanish, states that this
is a variety of Helix aspersa (normal specimens have number 88 written in ink and
also on their label) ‘resulting from an illness of the worm’ (‘Varietas de n° 88 que es
el resultado de una enfermedad del gusano’). Older labels and documents in the
Salvador Cabinet are all written in Catalan, but this was forbidden in official
paperwork after the defeat of the Austrian and Catalan army in 1714. Thus, the
cornucopiod’s label was likely written when the stylish drawers intended for public
exhibition were set.
288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
The Vienna and Barcelona cornucopioids may come from the same population.
This is a likely possibility, because Born studied in Vienna the natural history
collection that was the origin of the present Natural History Museum (Riedl-Dorn,
1999). Most of it had been bought by the Austrian Emperor in 1749 from the Duke
of Tuscany. That collection was largely assembled by Giovanni de Baillou (also
known as Johann Ritter von Baillou or Jean Chevallier de Baillou), who had become
director of the Uffici in Florence in 1735 and followed his cherished objects to become
the first director of the Hof Cabinet. The cornucopioid shells were an extremely rare
and sought after curiosity, and it is quite likely that both Argenville and Baillou
obtained them from the Salvadors. At any rate, what the Salvador cornucopioid
proves is that the teratological nature of such a land shell was public knowledge
among learned naturalists of the Enlightenment. All the evidence suggests that Born
must have been aware of the fact that his Cornu copiae was representing a
teratological (and splendid) variation.
It is therefore my opinion, that the Commission should not rule on Case 3518 as
proposed by Cowie. The proposal to make Cornu available is not based on actual
facts, because Cornu copiae was based on a teratological specimen known from the
start as such. Therefore, the current Code solves this case without any extraordinary
ruling. Moreover, the use of Cornu (instead of Cryptomphalus) has been promoted by
a minority of authors in the last decade, on the basis of mistaken reading of the
literature, no consultation of type material, and forced interpretation of early
zoological nomenclature. Such a proposal would vulnerate stability, unicity and
universality of the names of animals, and thus should be disregarded.
Additional references
Aguilar-Amat, J.B. d’. 1929. Observaciones malacoldégicas. VIII. Moluscos de una excursion a
la Alta Garrotxa (Gerona). Butlleti de la Institucié Catalana d’Historia Natural, 29:
111-112
Aguilar-Amat, J.B. d’. 1933. Observacions malacologiques. XIX. Contribucidé al coneixement
de la malacofauna menorquina. Butlleti de la Institucié Catalana d’Historia Natural, 33:
324-338.
Altaba, C.R. 2000. Are all mass invasions alike? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15: 248.
Altimira Aleu, C. & Altaba, C.R. 1985. Els mol-luscs terrestres de les Illes Medes. Pp. 223-230,
in Ros, J., Olivella, I. & Gili, J.M. (Eds.), Els sistemes naturals de les Illes Medes. Institut
d’Estudis Catalans, Barcelona.
Anderson, R. 2005. An annotated list of the non-marine mollusca of Britain and Ireland.
Journal of Conchology, 38: 607- 637.
Argenville, A.-J.D. d’. 1757. L’histoire naturelle éclaircie dans une des ses partie principales, la
Conchyliologie, qui traite des coquillages de mer, de riviére et terre; ouvrage dans lequel on
trouve une nouvelle méthode latine & francoise de les diviser: augmentée de la Zoomorphose,
ou représentation des animaux a coquilles, avec leurs explication. Nouvelle édition, enrichie
de figures dessinées d’aprés Nature. 394 pp., 9, 3 pls. De Bure, Paris.
Argenville, A.-J.D. d’. 1780. La Conchyliologie, ou histoire naturelle des coquilles de mer, d’eau
douce, terrestres et fossiles, avec un traité de la Zoomorphose, ou représentation des animaux
qui les habitent: ouvrage dans lequel on trouve une nouvelle méthode de les diviser. 3e édition.
De Bure, Paris. 878 pp., pls. I-Lxxx (+ 1) [facsimile edition of plates, 2009. 216 pp.
Taschen, Koln].
Backhuys, W. 1975. Land and freshwater mollusks of the Azores. xii, 350 pp., 32 pls., 97 maps.
Backhuys & Meesters, Amsterdam.
Badii, M.H. & Flores, A.E. 2001. Prickly pear cacti pests and their control in Mexico. Florida
Entomologist, 84: 503-505.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 289
Baminger, H. & Haase, M. 1999. Variation in spermathecal morphology and amount of sperm
stored in populations of the simultaneously hermaphroditic land snail Arianta arbusto-
rum. Journal of Zoology, 249: 165-171
Bequaert, J.C. & Miller, W.B. 1973. The mollusks of the arid southwest. With an Arizona check
list. xvi, 271 pp. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Bizot, M. 1971. Activité hémagglutinante des extraits de glande d’albumine de Helix
(Cryptomphalus ) aspersa et de Helix (Helix) pomatia. Revue Frangaise de Transfusion, 14:
445-53.
Bofill, A. & Haas, F. 1919a. Mol-luscos recollits en Asturias, en 1918 per Josep Maluquer,
precedits de consideracions bibliografiques sobre la malacologia asturiana. Butilleti de la
Instituciod Catalana d’Historia Natural, 19: 25-34.
Bofill, A. & Haas, F. 1919b. Mol-luscos terrestres i d’aigua dol¢a de la regié de Tortosa. Butlleti
de la Institucié Catalana d’ Historia Natural, 19: 128-131.
Bofill, A. & Haas, F. 1920. Estudi sobre la malacologia de les valls pirenaiques. Conca del
Llobregat. Treballs del Museu de Ciéncies Naturals de Barcelona, 3 (Sér. Zool., 13):
381-831.
Bofill, A., Haas, F. & Aguilar-Amat, J.B. d’. 1920. Estudi sobre la malacologia de les valls
pirenaiques. Conques del Besos, Ter, Fluvia, Muga i litorals intermitjes. Treballs del
Museu de Ciéncies Naturals de Barcelona, 3 (Sér. Zool., 14): 837-1241.
Camarasa Castillo, J.M. 2004. De colleccié privada a museu public: el gabinet Salvador de
l'Institut Botanic de Barcelona. Afers: fulls de recerca i pensament, 19: 721-727.
Campos, J. & Calvo, A. 2006. Moluscos introducidos en Uruguay. Comunicaciones de la
Sociedad Malacologica del Uruguay, 9: 75-78.
Colom, G. 1954. El medio y la vida en las Baleares. xx, 292 pp. Published by the author, Palma
de Mallorca.
Colom, G. 1957. Biogeografia de las Baleares. La formacion de las islas y el origen de su flora
y de su fauna. 568 pp. Estudio General Luliano, Palma de Mallorca.
Cossignani, T. & Cossignani, V. 1995. Atlante delle conchiglie terrestre e dulciaquicole italiane.
208 p. L’Informatore Piceno, Ancona.
Damjanoy, S. & Likharevy, I. 1975. Fauna Bulgarica, Gastropoda terrestria, vol. IV. 425 pp.
Publications of the Bulgarian Academy of Science, Sofia,
Dedoy, I.K. 1998. Annotated check-list of the Bulgarian terrestrial snails (Mollusca, Gas-
tropoda). Linzer biologische Beitrége, 30: 745-765.
Degner, E. 1930. Uber das Héhen-Breitenverhaltnis der Schneckenschalen, nebst einigen
variationsstatistischen Angaben tiber Cepaea und Zebrina. Zoomorphologie, 17: 124-144.
Egorov, R. 2008. Treasure of Russian shells. Supplement 5. Illustrated catalogue of the recent
terrestrial molluscs of Russia and adjacent regions. 179, [1] pp. Published by the author,
Moscow.
Espaiiol i Cabeza, J. 1969 (1968). Contribucié al coneixement de la morfologia i l’anatomia
interna dels pulmonats basomatofors. Treballs de la Societat Catalana de Biologia, 25:
47-52.
Falkner, G. 1990. Binnenmollusken. Pp. 112-286 in Steinbach (Ed.), Weichtiere. Mosaik,
Munchen.
Falkner, G. 1993. Moluscos de interior. Pp. 112-286, in Steinbach (Ed.), Moluscos. Moluscos
europeos marinos y de interior. Blume, Barcelona.
Faus, F.V. 1988. Contribucién al conocimiento de la malacofagia de Rattus rattus (Linnaeus,
1758). Mediterranea, Serie Biologia, 10: 19-27.
Ferreri, D. 1994. Contributo alla conoscenza della malacofauna della Riserva Naturale ‘Le
Cesine’ (Lecce). Thalassia Salentina, 20: 67-75.
Flores, V., Brusco, A. & Pecci Saavedra, J. 1986a. The serotoninergic system in Cryptomphalus
aspersa. Immunocytochemical study with an anti-5-HT antiserum. Journal of Neurobiol-
ogy, 17: 547-561.
Flores, V., Brusco, A. & Pecci Saavedra, J. 1988. Immunocytochemical study of the postnatal
development of 5-HT-containing neurons and fibers in the cerebroid ganglia of Crypto-
mphalus aspersa. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 6: 359-366.
290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
Flores, V., Brusco, A. & Pecci, J. 1986b. The origin of 5-HT fibers of the tentacular sensory
organs of Cryptomphalus aspersa. An immunocytochemical study following transection of
the cerebro-tentacular connective. Journal of Neurobiology, 17: 563-568.
Flores, V., Brusco, A., Scicolone, G. & Pecci Saavedra, J. 1992. Serotoninergic reinnervation of
regenerating tentacular sensory organs in a pulmonate snail, Cryptomphalus aspersa.
International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 10: 331-340.
Frank, C. 1995. Die Weichtiere (Mollusca): tiber Rtickwanderer, Einwanderer, Verschleppte;
expansive und regressive Areale. In: Einwanderer/Neue Tierarten erobern Osterreich.
Stapfia, 37: 17-53.
Gallo, G. 1998. El caracol: cria y explotacion. 2a. ed. 179 pp. Mundi-Prensa, Madrid.
Gasull, L. & Alcover, J.A. 1982. La cova de Ca na Reia: desconcertant estacid malacologica del
Pleistocé de les Pititises. Endins, 9: 41-44.
Gasull, L. 1972 (‘1970’) Casos teratologicos en los helicidos de Baleares. (Gastrop. Pulm).
Boletin de la Sociedad de Historia Natural de Baleares, 16: 20-22.
Gerber, J. 2000. [Review of] Giusti, F., Manganelli, G. & Schembri, P.J. (1996): The
non-marine molluscs of the Maltese Islands. Heldia, 3: 42-44.
Germain, L. 1930. Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles (premiére partie). Faune de France, 21:
1-477. Paul Lechevalier, Paris.
Goeden, R.D. 1974. Comparative survey of the phytophagous insect faunas of Italian thistle,
Carduus pycnocephalus, in southern California and southern Europe relative to biological
weed control. Environmental Entomology, 3: 464-474.
Gracenea, M. & Gonzalez-Moreno, O. 2002. Life cycle of Brachylaima mascomai 0. sp.
(Trematoda: Brachylaimidae), a parasite of rats in the Llobregat Delta (Spain). Journal of
Parasitology, 88: 124-133.
Groenenberg, D.S.J., Neubert, E. & Gittenberger, E. (in press). Reappraisal of the “Molecular
phylogeny of Western Palaearctic Helicidae s.]. (Gastropoda: Stylommatophora)’: When
poor science meets GenBank. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (2011),
doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2011.08.024
Haas, F. 1918. Contribuci6 a la fauna malacoldégica de Catalunya. Alguns mol-luscos terrestres
i d’aigua dolca de la Provincia de Tarragona. Butlleti de la Instituciod Catalana d' Historia
Natural, 18: 70-72.
Haas, F. 1924a. Contribucié a la fauna malacologica de la conca inferior de ’Ebre. Butlleti de
la Institucié Catalana d’Historia Natural, 24: 48-63, lam. II.
Haas, F. 1924b. Beitrag zur Molluskenfauna des unteren Ebrogebietes. Archiv fiir Mollusken-
kunde, 56: 137-160.
Haas, F. 1929. Fauna malacologica terrestre y de agua dulce de Catalunia. Trabajos del Museos
de Ciencias Naturales de Barcelona, 13: 1-491. (Reprinted in 1991 as Treballs del Museu
de Zoologia, 5: 1-491).
Hartwig, H.G., Brisson, P., Lyncker, I. & Collin, J.P. 1980. Aminergic systems in pulmonate
gastropod molluscs. Cell and Tissue Research, 210: 223-234.
Hernandez, E., Cadevall, J., Orozco, A., Nebot, J., Bros, V. & Uribe, F. 2003. Informe sobre la
col-leccié malacologica Gabinet Salvador. Associaciéd d’Amics del Museu de Zoologia,
Barcelona (unpublished report).
Hesse, P. 1913. Zur Kenntnis der Molluskenfauna von Ostrumelien. I. Nachrichtsblatt der
Deutschen Malakozoologischen Gesellschaft, 45: 1-16.
Hubenoy, Z. 2007. Fauna and zoogeography of marine, freshwater, and terrestrial mollusks
(Mollusca) in Bulgaria. Pp. 141- XXX, in Fet, V. & Popov, A. (Eds.), Biogeography and
ecology of Bulgaria. Springer, Dordrecht.
Hueto, M.N., Martinez, A.M., Barber, A. & Ponz, F. 1982. Active transport of L-phenylalanine
by snail intestine, Helix (Cryptomphalus) aspersa. Revista Espajiola de Fisiologia, 38:
403-408.
Ibafiez i Cortina, N. 2006. Estudis sobre cinc herbaris historics de Institut Botanic de Barcelona.
290 pp. PhD thesis, University of Barcelona, Barcelona.
Jaeckel, S.G.A. 1969. Die Mollusken Siidamerikas. Pp. 794-827, in Fittkau, E. J. (Ed.),
Biogeography and ecology in South America, vol. 2. Junk, The Hague.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 a
Kerney, M.P., Cameron, R.A.D. & Bertrand, A. 1999. Guide des escargots et limaces d’ Europe.
370 pp., 28 pls. Delachaux et Niestlé, Paris.
Kiss, L., Magnin, F. & Torre, F. 2004. The role of landscape history and persistent
biogeographical patterns in shaping the responses of Mediterranean land snail commu-
nities to recent fire disturbances. Journal of Biogeography, 31: 145-157
Leach, W.E. 1852. Molluscorum Britanniae Synopsys. A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great
Britain, arranged according to their natural affinities and anatomical structure. xvi , 376 pp.,
pls. i-xiii. John Van Vorst, London.
Leonov, S.V. 2009. Land mollusks (Mollusca; Gastropoda) of Crimea: species check-list.
Optimization and Protection of Ecosystems. TNU, 20: 14-19.
Madec, L., Bellido, A. & Guiller, A. 2003. Shell shape of the land snail Cornu aspersum in North
Africa: unexpected evidence of a phylogeographical splitting. Heredity, 91: 224-231.
Manga, M.Y. & Morrondo-Pelayo, M.P. 1994. Larval development of ovine Neostrongylus
linearis in four experimentally infested mollusc species. Journal of Helminthology, 68:
207-210.
Manga-Gonzalez, M.Y. & Cordero del Campillo, M. 1979. Helicidae (Gastropoda, Pulmonata)
hospedadores intemediarios actuales o potenciales, de Dicrocoelium dendriticum en la
provincia de Leén, nor-oeste de Espafia. Haliotis, 8: 179-182.
Manga-Gonzalez, M.Y. 1983. Los Helicidae (Gastropoda, Pulmonata) de la provincia de Leén.
Diputacion Provincial de Leén. 394 pp. Institucién “Fray Bernardino de Sahagun”
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC).
Mas-Coma, S. & Montoliu, I. 1987. The life cycle of Dollfusinus frontalis, a brachylaimid
trematode of small mammals (Insectivora and Rodentia). International Journal for
Parasitology, 17: 1063-1079.
Mercadal, B., Villalta, J. F., Obrador, A. & Rosell, J. 1970. Nueva aportacion al conocimiento
del Cuaternario menorquin. Acta Geologica Hispanica, 5: 89-93.
Morrondo, M.P. & Manga, M.Y. 1989. Infestacién experimental con Muellerius capillaris y
Neostrongylus linearis (Nematoda, Protostrongylidae) de algunas especies de moluscos
terrestres (Stylommatophora). Revista Ibérica de Parasitologia, 49: 233-240.
Neubert, E. 1998. Annotated checklist of the terrestrial and freshwater molluscs of the Arabian
Peninsula with descriptions of new species. Fauna of Arabia, 17: 333-461.
Ortiz de Zarate Lopez, A. 1991. Descripcion de los moluscos terrestres del valle del Najerilla. 400
pp. Consejeria de Educacién, Cultura y Deportes, Gobierno de La Rioja, Logrofio.
Parisi, V. & Gandolfi, G. 1974. Further aspects of the predation by rats on various mollusc
species. Bollettino Zoologico, 41: 87-106.
Pfeiffer, L. 1841-1842. Symbolae ad Historiam heliceorum. 88, 147, 100 pp. Fisher, Cassel
[= Kassel].
Pfeiffer, L. 1848. Monographia heliceorum viventium. Sistens descriptiones systematicas et
criticas omnium huius familiae generum et specierum hodie cognitarum, vol. 1. xxxii, 484 pp.
Brockhaus, Lispsiae [= Leipzig].
Pilsbry, H.A. 1940. Land Mollusca of North America north of Mexico. Volume I. Part 1. 1-574
pp. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.
Pilsbry, H.A. 1948. Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico). Volume II. Part 2.
xlvii, 521-1113 pp. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.
Renoux, G. & Quatrefarges, H. 1951. The escape of Brucella melitensis Meyer and Shaw, from
experimentally infected snails, H. (Cryptomphalus) aspersa Miller. Revue de Pathologie
Comparée, 51(632): 82-84.
Ried|-Dorn, C. 1999. The natural history collections in Vienna’s Naturhistorisches Museum.
Cahiers d’Etude | Study series ICOM, 7: 3-5.
Robinson, D.G. 2001. Invasive snails: deliberate introductions. P. 13, in Seeno, T.N. & Eichlin,
T.D., (Eds.), Annual Report, Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch. California Department of
Food & Agriculture, Sacramento.
Scarabino, F. 2003. Lista sistematica de los Gastropoda terrestres vivientes de Uruguay.
Comunicaciones de la Sociedad Malacolégica del Uruguay, 8: 203-214.
292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
Schileyko, A.A. 2006. Treatise on Recent terrestrial pulmonate molluscs. Part 13: Helicidae,
Pleurodontidae, Polygyridae, Ammonitellidae, Oreohelicidae, Thysanophoridae.
Ruthenica, Supplement, 2(10): 1765-1906.
Sparks, B.W. 1952. Notes on some Pleistocene sections at Barrington, Cambridgeshire.
Geological Magazine, 89: 163-174.
Sverlova, N.V. 2006. O rasprostranenii nekotorykh vidov nazemnykh mollyuskov na territorii
Ukrainy. Ruthenica, 16: 119-139.
Sysoev, A. & Schileyko, A. 2009. Land snails and slugs of Russia and adjacent countries. 312 pp.
Sofia, Pensoft.
Taylor, J.W. 1910-1911. Monograph of Helix aspersa. In: Monograph of the land and
freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles, 3(17): 236-272, pls. 23-24.
Trib6é M.J., Serra Balrich, E., Asin, M. & Camarasa, J.G. 1999. Evaluacion de la eficacia
antiarrugas y reafirmante de un producto a base de Cryptomphalus aspersa en el
tratamiento del fotoenvejecimiento cutaneo. Dermatologia Cosmética, 9: 18-24
Turner, H., Kuiper, J.G.J., Thew, N., Bernasconi, R., Riietschi, J., Wiithrich, M. & Gosteli, M.
1998. Mollusca. Atlas. Fauna Helvetica, 2: 1-527. Centre Suisse pour la Cartographie de
la Faune (SSCF/SZKF) & Schweizerische Entomologische Gesellschaft (SES/SEG),
Neuchatel.
Webb, G.R. 1943. The mating of the Landsnail Haplotrema concavum (Say). American Midland
Naturalist, 30: 341-345.
Yildrim, M.Z., Kebapci, U. & Giimiis, B.A. 2004. Edible snails (terrestrial) of Turkey. Turkish
Journal of Zoology, 28: 329-335.
Comments on the proposed precedence of Maculinea van Eecke, 1915 over Phengaris
Doherty, 1891 (Lepidoptera, LYCAENIDAE)
(Case 3508: see BZN 67: 129-132, 245, 315-319)
(1) M.G. Morris, M.V.L. Barclay and D. Agassiz
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 5BD, U.K.
(e-mail: m.morris@nhm.ac.uk, m.barclay@nhm.ac.uk)
We support the application by Balletto et al. (BZN 67: 129) to give precedence to
Maculinea van Eecke, 1915 over Phengaris Doherty, 1891. The three main grounds
are: (i) The importance to a wide range of users of the Maculinea butterfly-ant
interactions that have been the subject of many recent papers in important biological
journals and in which the generic name Maculinea has almost always been employed;
(ii) The almost universal use of the generic name Maculinea for several butterfly
species of considerable importance to conservationists; (111) Protection of the stability
of an animal name in use by numerous non-taxonomist stakeholders, whose opinion
of, and respect for, zoological nomenclature and taxonomy in general may depend on
the stability of just a few familiar names.
In arguing against the application, Fric et al. (BZN 67: 315) remarked that the
authors of Case 3508 ‘fail to provide a taxonomically feasible way to preserve the
name Maculinea’. However, there is no known taxonomic impediment to a straight-
forward application to plenary power to give precedence to Maculinea over
Phengaris.
Fric et al. also gave a detailed account of the nomenclatural history of the
Maculinea butterflies, but, with the exception of the idiosyncratic action of Nassig
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 293
(1995) in synonymising Maculinea with Glaucopsyche, most of the detail relates to the
period roughly up to the middle of the twentieth century. More recent work has seen
Maculinea used in a majority of cases, particularly in the biological, evolutionary and
conservation literature (as opposed to the strictly taxonomic). We do not agree with
Fric et al.’s dismissal of the significance of prevailing usage in field guides,
distribution atlases and other publications that they consider not to be of ‘major
scientific importance’ (p. 315). On the contrary, the taxonomic community is by
definition the most likely to understand and accept nomenclatural change, and it is
the much larger non-taxonomic user base and their needs that the principle of
stability seeks to protect. Recent experience has shown (e.g. Vane-Wright, 2011) that
many non-taxonomic users are increasingly using alternative ‘vernacular’ nomencla-
tures (that lack the advantage of universality) and moving away from the use of
scientific nomenclature, which is popularly perceived as legalistic, complicated and
unstable. Any changes in the names of well-known organisms serve to reinforce this
undesirable trend. For example, the recent uptake of Phengaris by some specialists
and the continued use of Maculinea by others may be resulting in more use of the
vernacular name ‘Large Blue’ (meaningless or misleading outside the U.K.) in recent
British conservation literature. Furthermore, if Balletto et al. (2010) were to be
unsuccessful, conservationists and ecologists, especially, are likely to continue to
employ Maculinea. This would have the effect of dividing nomenclature into ‘official’
and ‘practical’ usages with detriment to the perception of the Code and Zoological
Nomenclature among non-taxonomic communities.
Additional references
Nassig, W. 1995. Die Tagfalter der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Vorschlag fiir ein modernes,
phylogenetisch orientiertes Artenverzeichnis (komentierte Checkliste). Entomologische
Nachrichten und Berichte, 39: 1-28.
Vane-Wright, R.I. 2011. ICZN — an increasing concern for zoological nomenclature? Antenna,
35: 114-117.
(2) David Agassiz
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, U.K.
(email: d.agassiz@nhm.ac.uk)
I would like to support the proposal to conserve the name Maculinea as this genus of
butterflies is so important, not just for Lepidoptera taxonomy but on account of its
interest in myrmicophily among LYCAENIDAE.
294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger,
1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines)
(Case 3463; see BZN 66: 34-50, 80-87, 169-186, 274-290, 352-357; 67: 71-90,
170-178, 246-254, 319-331; 68: 72-77, 140-143)
(1) Anthony Cheke
139 Hurst Street, Oxford OX4 1HE, U.K.
(e-mail: anthony.cheke@dodobooks.com)
Frazier & Matyot (2010; BZN 68: 140-143) have attempted to sideline the putative
lectotype of the Aldabra tortoise, the Leiden specimen collected by Dussumier, by
arguing that it cannot be considered suitable as its provenance is uncertain on both
historical and genotypic (DNA) grounds. In relation to the correct name for the
species in question, there are two issues they have not considered.
1. If they are correct that the uncertain provenance of RMNH 3231 makes this
specimen an unsuitable lectotype, it follows that the next available name, i.e. Testudo
elephantina Duméril & Bibron, 1835 should be (re-)adopted, its type locality
restricted to Aldabra by Giinther in 1877 (see Bour & Pritchard, BZN 66: 169-174,
2009). Their arguments provide no support for, nor have they any bearing on, the
conservation and continued use of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 for the
Aldabra tortoise, a move Frazier himself initiated. That decision depends entirely on
the status of a quite different specimen, MNHN 9554, and the Commission’s verdict
on that, as discussed in numerous previous submissions in relation to this case.
In that context it should be noted that quite recently a Portuguese scholar, Luis
Ceriaco, examined MNHN 9554 in connection with a study on the surviving
specimens from the former “Cabinet d’Ajuda’ in Lisbon. He concluded that this
tortoise is clearly stuffed in the manner used for large specimens in that establishment
at the end of the 18th century (Roger Bour, pers. comm. 13 September 2011). This is
a new element adding to the already very strong evidence that this specimen is the
very Brazilian tortoise “e collectione regia Libonens1’ described by Schweigger in 1812
as Testudo gigantea.
It is certainly unfortunate when the rediscovery or re-identification of a type
transfers a familiar name to a different species, but as I and others have commented
before (e.g. BZN 67(1):79-81), the same process with the Galapagos tortoises, equally
iconic, did not incur the extraordinary reaction (and polarisation) that has been
spawned by Case 3463, nor indeed any of world-wide confusion predicted for the
Aldabra case. Why are people prepared readily to lose the equally long-established
elephantopus but are yet so attached to gigantea ?
2. The fact that a type specimen was collected in an area where it is not native is
not per se an impediment to its use in nomenclature, as Frazier & Matyot imply, even
if they do not say so outright. Indeed another well-known Indian Ocean tortoise
Astrochelys yniphora, a Madagascar endemic, was originally described from a
specimen traded into and collected on Grande Comore/Ngazidja (Bour, 2007).
Another Indian Ocean example is that of the small bird Lonchura striata (Linnaeus,
1766), a native of India and south-east Asia, which was first collected in the island of
Réunion to which it had been introduced (e.g. Cheke, 2009). Hence the collection
locality of the type (e.g. Grande Comore, Réunion) need not reflect the true natural
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 295
range of the species (e.g. Madagascar, India etc.). However as there are several
recognised races of the bird, the Reunion specimen had at some later time to be
assigned, by matching to other populations, to a source locality, Ceylon, (Baker,
1926) to create a nominate race (although Stuart Baker restricted the type locality to
Ceylon/Sri Lanka, the range of the subspecies extends throughout southern India,
and the birds introduced to Réunion probably originated in the French trading post
at Pondicherry on the Tamil coast south of Madras/Chennai). The same issue applies
to the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri. The Code specifies how to treat a specimen
from outside its natural range, including an introduced self-sustaining or captive-
breeding population: Article 76.1.1 states that ‘If capture or collection occurred after
transport by artificial means, the type locality is the place from which the name-
bearing type, or its wild progenitor, began its unnatural journey’. Thus, in full
accordance with the Code, it is entirely in order for the type of an Aldabra tortoise
to have the granitic Seychelles, Mauritius or Réunion as its collection locality,
counter-intuitive as this may seem. Some early types inevitably have no unequivocal
collection locality at all.
As I have argued previously (BZN 67: 79-81), in a pertinent note Frazier &
Matyot conspicuously failed to cite in their BZN review, it is highly probable that
an Aldabra/Seychelles tortoise collected on either the granitic Seychelles or the
Mascarenes in the mid-1820s would have come from Aldabra, and Frazier & Matyot
are somewhat selective in their choice of sources to imply an equal likelihood of it
being a native of the granitic Seychelles. Although native Seychelles animals were
still being exported in 1807, as Frazier & Matyot (2010) note, by 1815, as I pointed
out, Aldabran animals were being imported into the granitics in large numbers
precisely because the native tortoises had become too scarce to be worth hunting
(full references in my earlier note). It should be remembered that these animals were
commercially transported to be sold and eaten, not as pets to be kept and nurtured
for years, so earlier imports from the granitics would mostly have been consumed.
At ca. 3 years old RMNH 3231, probably collected ca. 1825, would have hatched
around 1822-3 at the earliest, and hence is unlikely to have originated in the
granitics, although another, smaller, juvenile Dussumier collected (MNHN 1942),
stated as being from the Seychelles by Dumeril & Bibron, is considered somewhat
tentatively to be a granitic native by Bour (2006 & refs. therein) and firmly assigned
there with no additional identification evidence by Frazier & Matyot (2010); DNA
extraction failed on this specimen (Austin et al., 2003). Frazier & Matyot also failed
to acknowledge, as I also pointed out, that the locals on the recipient islands were
then fully aware of the provenance of animals being imported (their origin
advertised in sales), and Dussumier would certainly have been told where his
specimen originated. Hence, whatever Temminck’s occasional shortcomings on
provenance, that is not an a priori reason to disbelieve his and Schlegel’s designation
in this specific case. As I have said previously (BZN 67: 79-81) ‘why invent the then
extremely obscure (to Europeans) locality of Aldabra if there was no reason to do
so?’ - the obvious inference 1s that at the time of transfer to Leiden the Paris museum
had information directly from Dussumier that Aldabra was the (ultimate) origin of
this specimen.
Frazier & Matyot (2010) profess to being amazed that I should suggest it, but the
fact that RMNH 3231 cannot be assigned to one or other source on its mtDNA or
296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
(according to them) on morphology is of no importance at the level of species, as
animals from both groups of islands are considered by almost everyone to be
conspecific (e.g. Austin et al., 2003). Hence, since most authors are agreed that the
specimen is of the species native to both Aldabra and the granitic Seychelles, it is
perfectly proper to use it as the lectotype, despite its actual provenance being
uncertain. Given that some authors split the species into Aldabra and granitic
Seychelles forms (as subspecies) and a handful consider them species, it does become
necessary either to restrict dussumieri to one or other group of islands as original
source (irrespective of where it was collected), or invalidate it (which would take us
back to T. elephantina for Aldabra animals). Recent study of juveniles of the three
existing morphotypes (Aldabra and two presumed to be from the granitic islands),
reared in identical conditions (Gerlach & Bour, 2003; Gerlach, 2011), shows that they
are statistically distinguishable, and most can be separated individually. RMNH
3231, a juvenile of straight carapace length 119 mm (Bour & Pritchard, unpublished;
see photo with scale in Griinewald, 2009), is considered to be a juvenile Aldabra
tortoise by the only three herpetologists who have personally studied the specimen,
Bour, Pritchard & Hoogmoed (Hoogmoed et al., 2010; further supporting references
in BZN 67: 79-81). Furthermore its body co-ordinates, using Gerlach’s (2011)
analysis, closely fit the Aldabra morphotype, not those presumed to be from the
granitic islands. A figure showing RMNH’s coordinates superimposed on Gerlach’s
(2011) figures for living tortoises is available from the author. Its co-ordinates are
well within the 95% envelope for dorsal and lateral growth patterns, and only just
outside for the plastral pattern, for which in any case the morphotypes are not clearly
separable until reaching the 31-40 cm size range (Gerlach, 2011). Given the tradition
that the specimen came from Aldabra, the long-standing morphological support for
that view from those who have studied it, and with particular emphasis on the
additional morpho-statistical evidence, I formally propose that the type locality of
Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831, represented by the lectotype in Leiden, RMNH 3231,
be restricted to the Aldabra atoll. The specimen is fully illustrated with all labels by
Griinewald (2009).
A further point is that the fact that the mtDNA haplotype exhibited by RMNH
3231 is not currently found on Aldabra proves nothing. The animal was collected
long before the late 19th century bottleneck when the population was close to
extinction (Stoddart & Peake, 1979; Bourn et al., 1999) which could have caused the
loss of haplotypes (as already noted by Palkovacs et al., 2003). Furthermore it could
easily have come from an island (Polymnie, Picard [later re-introduced]) where
tortoises, and thus possibly some haplotypes, were wiped out entirely. Frazier &
Matyot did not mention that Austin et al. (2003) found 3 other individuals with
haplotypes 1—4 substitutions adrift from the majority, 2 alive in the Seychelles (and
considered by the NPTS (Nature Protection Trust of Seychelles) to be granitic
natives), and one labelled ‘Aldabra’ in the London Natural History Museum.
Although the ‘B’ haplotype is unique, so are the *C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ examples, thus
reducing the significance of the small (2 substitutions) difference seen in RMNH
3231. Balmer et al. (2011), studying the genetic variation in tortoises on Aldabra, did
not apply their microsatellite analysis to any museum specimens or to living animals
thought to originate in the granitic islands, though previous work (Palkovacs et al.,
2003) suggests variation is minimal.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 297
In conclusion, Frazier & Matyot (BZN 68: 140-143) seem to have confused
collection locality, type locality and geographical origin. Ideally these should be the
same, but with old specimens, of species that were traded around, released and/or
bred by humans, they often are not.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Justin Gerlach for adding specimen RMNH 3231 to his
morphological growth plots for Aldabra and presumed granitic Seychelles tortoises,
and supplying the diagram modified from his 2011 paper with Dussumier’s specimen
added. Roger Bour contributed an important new observation on the holotype of
Testudo gigantea and made useful comments on a draft.
Additional references
Baker, E.C.S. 1926. The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Birds - Vol. III. xx,
489 pp. Taylor & Francis, London.
Bour, R. 2006. An unnamed tortoise from the Seychelles Islands. Emys, 13(3): 24-30.
Bour, R. 2007. The Plowshare tortoise: past, present, and uncertain future. The type of Testudo
yniphora Vaillant, 1885, with a selected bibliography. Emys, 14 (1): 33-46.
Bourn, D., Gibson, C., Augeri, D., Wilson, C.J., Church, J. & Hay, S.I. 1999. The rise and fall
of the Aldabran giant tortoise population. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B
Biological Sciences, 266: 1091-1100.
Cheke, A.S. 2009. Data sources for 18th century French encyclopaedists - what they used and
omitted: evidence of data lost and ignored from the Mascarene Islands, Indian Ocean.
Journal of the National Museum Praha, Natural History Series, 177: 91-117.
Frazier, J. & Matyot, P. 2010. On the identity of Monsieur Dussumier’s Dutch tortoise and the
lectotype of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831. Zootaxa, 2665: 29-SO.
Gerlach, J. & Bour, R. 2003. Morphology of hatchling Dipsochelys giant tortoises. Radiata,
12(3): 11-20.
Gerlach, J. 2011. Development of distinct morphotypes in captive Seychelles—Aldabra giant
tortoises. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 10(1): 102-112.
Griinewald, F. 2009.Museumcollecties ... RMNH 3231 (Dipsochelys dussumieri) Gray, 1831.
Trionyx, 7: 136-142.
Hoogmoed, M.S., Gass6 Miracle, M.E. & van den Hoek Ostende, L.W. 2010. Type specimens
of recent and fossil Testudines and Crocodylia in the collections of the Netherlands Centre
for Biodiversity, Naturalis, Leiden, the Netherlands. Zoologische Mededelingen, Leiden,
84(8): 159-199.
Palkovacs, E.P., Marschner, M., Ciofi, C., Gerlach, J., & Caccones A. 2003. Are the native
giant tortoises from the Seychelles really extinct? A genetic perspective based on mtDNA
and microsatellite data. Molecular Ecology, 12: 1403-13.
Stoddart, D.R. & Peake, J.F. 1979. Historical records of Indian Ocean giant tortoise
populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B, 286: 147-161.
(2) C. Smeenk
Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity Naturalis (National Museum of Natural
History), PO Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
(e-mail: chris.smeenk@ncbnaturalis.nl)
The locality of the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831
The latest comment by Frazier & Matyot (BZN 68: 140-143), in reaction to the
preceding one by Hoogmoed (BZN 68: 72-77), cannot go unanswered. The main
298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
point, time and again raised by Frazier & Matyot, is that the locality Aldabra is
unreliable and is actually likely to be Mahé, with the argument (p. 140) that ‘There
is no evidence that J.-J. Dussumier, considered to be the collector of the lectotype,
ever visited Aldabra, but he is definitely known to have made collections on Mahé,
in the granitic Seychelles.’ No doubt this is correct, but Dussumier was a merchant,
and merchants buy interesting things from interesting places wherever they come
across them. Museums all over the world are full of specimens obtained that way, and
I can give a great many examples from the Leiden Museum that were received from
collectors or travellers who did not visit the localities from where (part of) their
material originated. Austin et al. (2003, p. 1421) write, quoting 19th-century
references, that tortoises from Aldabra were shipped to the central Seychelles and
other islands in those days, often in great numbers (see also Bour et al., BZN 67:
72-73; Cheke, BZN 67: 79-81, and Hoogmoed et al., 2010, p. 176). Even Frazier &
Matyot (2010, p. 140) themselves stated that Dussumier was also known to have
visited the Mascarene Islands of Mauritius and Ile Bourbon (La Réunion), where
thousands of tortoises from the granitic Seychelles, as well as from Aldabra, had been
imported; they confirm this on p. 142. So the fact that Dussumier himself never
visited Aldabra cannot be put forward as an argument against the recorded
provenance of this tortoise. Strangely, whereas Frazier in his letter to me of 7 July
admits that ‘We have never said that it is impossible that Dussumier somehow
(perhaps by trade, perhaps by purchase, perhaps by exchange?) obtained a tortoise
from Aldabra’, the authors again ignore this obvious explanation in their latest
comment, just saying (p. 141) that ‘there is no mention of any Dussumier tortoise
from Aldabra’. In Leiden there is, disqualified as it may be by Frazier & Matyot.
These authors elaborate on three points: the very brief description by Gray (1831b)
which they call (p. 141) ‘confused for many reasons’, the absence of an original label,
and the data published by Schlegel in Temminck & Schlegel (1834) (see Tschudi, 1838
for Schlegel’s sole authorship) which they mistrust, erroneously quoting Hoogmoed
(BZN 68: 74) in saying (p. 141) ‘the source of this is unknown’. I will address each of
these subjects.
(1) Gray (1831b). — Gray’s original description is very brief indeed, but not at all
‘confused’. Gray enumerates the species of reptiles known to him, starting with the
genus Testudo (p. 8), number | (p. 9) being ‘Test. Indica, (Indian Tortoise.)’. He
mentions the specimens seen by him under the names by which they were arranged
in the various collections. The Leiden one appears as follows: ‘Junior. Testa nigra
margine laterali angulato, areolis magnis. Test. Dussumieri, Schlegel MSS. (v. Mus.
Leyd.) — Pet. Gaz. t. 76, f. 4.’ (the latter reference does not relate to the Leiden
animal); and further: ‘Habitat in India Orientali, Gen. Hardwicke, Insula Mauritiana,
Insula Aldebra, M. Dussumiere.’ Gray had not the intention of describing a new
species, but referred to a specimen in the Leiden Museum (v. = vide = see) identified
by him as 7. indica, and bearing the manuscript name ‘7. Dussumieri’ apparently
used by Schlegel, then the Curator of Vertebrates and the herpetologist of the Leiden
Museum. These manuscript notes (MSS being plural) could have been labels or any
other written records relating to the specimen.
(2) Labels. — Regarding the lack of an original label: in the great majority of
collections from the early 19th century, very few original labels (if there were any;
data were often provided in the form of letters or other notes) have been preserved,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 299
and the Leiden Museum is no exception, unfortunately. Regarding alcohol speci-
mens: many labels in jars faded with time, so had to be copied for that reason alone,
or were glued to the outside of jars and could not be replaced when specimens were
rearranged. New labels would bear the scientific names then in use, and in most cases
did not repeat manuscript names that had become obsolete. This explains why the
name Testudo Dussumieri was not entered onto the oldest label of this tortoise that
still exists; in the meantime, both Gray and Schlegel had identified the specimen as
T. indica. The same holds true for the first record in the museum’s written catalogue,
which was composed much later.
(3) Schlegel (1834). — A few years after Gray’s (1831b) synopsis, the locality of this
tortoise was specified by Schlegel, in the reptile volume of the Fauna Japonica edited
by Temminck & Schlegel; the section on chelonians (pp. 1-80) was published in
January 1834, see Holthuis & Sakai (1970, p. 75). Following Gray, Schlegel too,
included the specimen in Testudo indica: ‘This institution has received another very
young individual from the Paris Museum, communicated under the name of Test.
Dussumieri, brought back by the traveller whose name it bears, from the island of
Aldebra, situated in the north of the Mozambique Channel.’ (transl. from French).
This is in line with Gray’s reference to the manuscript name ‘7. Dussumieri’ — even
the spelling ‘Aldebra’ is the same. This text may be regarded as relatively good
provenance for the specimen and support for the view that these data are genuine and
had been provided by Paris, along with the accompanying manuscript name. Frazier
& Matyot conclude (p. 141): “As Hoogmoed explained (BZN 68: 74 and following
pages), it is unknown on what Temminck & Schlegel based this statement’, and
further on: ‘The basis for his assertion now rests on Temminck & Schlegel’s (1834)
above-quoted statement, although Hoogmoed acknowledges that the source of this is
unknown’. This is a misquotation. On the contrary, Hoogmoed says (p. 74):
‘Temminck & Schlegel (1834) made the published, printed statement about name,
collector, locality and specimen on the basis of documentation (in whichever form)
they had received from Paris with the specimen concerned’, i.e. the information had
been ‘communicated’ by the Paris Museum with the specimen in the form of a label
or some other document.
The identity of the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri (Gray, 1831)
Frazier & Matyot did not check the identity of RMNH 3231 themselves, either by
studying the animal or by asking another herpetologist to provide a clear description,
measurements and photographs. The tortoise has been studied by several herpetolo-
gists, professionals and knowledgeable amateurs, in recent years R. Bour, P.C.H.
Pritchard, M.S. Hoogmoed and F. Griinewald. They have all independently ident-
ified it as an Aldabra tortoise; see Griinewald (BZN 67: 178) and Hoogmoed (BZN
68: 72). Excellent colour photographs have appeared in various publications, e.g.
Gerlach (2004, p. 68) in a book reviewed by Frazier (2006b, p. 370 — “The
photographs of rarely seen type specimens are valuable’) and Griinewald (2009,
p. 137-138) who gives four photographs showing measurement scales. Frazier &
Matyot have not criticized the findings of these authors, nor discussed the dis-
tinguishing characters used, and not commented on the published photographs. It is
a young animal; even if this might be difficult to distinguish from similar specimens
300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011
from other islands, that should be clearly stated and discussed. For want of
any morphological evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to doubt the
identifications by these herpetologists.
Finally, there are the genetic studies (Austin et al., 2003; Balmer et al., 2010) which
have proved inconclusive. Frazier & Matyot (2010, p. 143) rightly conclude that ‘the
taxonomic identity of the lectotype remains unresolved’; i.e. as far as genetic studies
are concerned.
Conclusions
In their paper and comments, Frazier & Matyot reiterate that the provenance of
RMNH 3231 is ‘uncertain’, but this uncertainty results from disbelieving the data
accompanying the specimen. With so much uncertainty surrounding the lectotype, in
their opinion the name Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831 should really be suppressed.
Whatever arguments there may be in favour of that on other grounds, any possible
doubt concerning the provenance of the lectotype is not a sufficient reason.
Additional references
Balmer, O., Ciofi, C., Galbraith, D.A., Swingland, I.R., Zug, G.R. & Caccone, A. 2010.
Population genetic structure of Aldabra giant tortoises. Journal of Heredity, Advance
Access August 30, 2010: 1-9.
Frazier, J. & Matyot, P. 2010. On the identity of Monsieur Dussumier’s Dutch tortoise and the
lectotype of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831. Zootaxa, 2665: 29-50.
Gerlach, J. 2004. Giant tortoises of the Indian Ocean. The genus Dipsochelys inhabiting the
Seychelles Islands and the extinct giants of Madagascar and the Mascarenes. Frankfurter
Beitrdge zur NaturkundelFrankfurt Contributions to Natural History, 21: 1-207. Edition
Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main.
Griinewald, F. 2009. Museumcollecties. RMNH 3231 (Dipsochelys dussumieri) Gray, 1831.
Trionyx, 7: 136-142.
Holthuis, L.B. & Sakai, T. 1970. Ph. F. von Siebold and Fauna Japonica. A history of early
Japanese zoology. 323 pp. Academic Press of Japan, Tokyo.
Hoogmoed, M.S., Gass6 Miracle, M.E. & van den Hoek Ostende, L.W. 2010. Type specimens
of recent and fossil Testudines and Crocodylia in the collections of the Netherlands Centre
for Biodiversity Naturalis, Leiden, the Netherlands. Zoologische Mededelingen Leiden, 84:
159-199.
Smeenk, C. 2009. Has one of Captain Cook’s possums landed in Leiden? The possible holotype
of Pseudocheirus peregrinus (Boddaert, 1785). Zoologische Mededelingen Leiden, 83:
723-740.
Temminck, C.J. 1821. Calao a casque sillonné. Buceros sulcatus. Temm. In: Temminck, C.J. &
Le Baron Meiffren Laugier de Chartrouse (Eds.), Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées
d oiseaux, pour servir de suite et de complément aux planches enluminées de Buffon., Vol. 2.
2 pp., | pl. [unnumbered]. F.G. Levrault, Paris/Strasbourg & Legras Imbert & Comp.,
Amsterdam.
Temminck, C.J. 1824. Premiére monographie. Sur le genre Phalanger. — Phalangista. (Geoff.)
(1). In: Monographies de mammalogie, ou description de quelques genres de mammiferes,
dont les espéces ont été observées dans les différens musées de l'Europe. Tome premier: 1—20,
pls I-IV. G. Dufour & Ed. D’Ocagne, Paris/Amsterdam.
Schlegel, H. 1834. Les chéloniens. Jn: Temminck, C.J. & Schlegel, H. (Eds.), Fauna Japonica
auctore Ph. Fr. de Siebold. Reptilia elaborantibus C.J. Temminck et H. Schlegel. 80 pp.,
9 pls. J.G. Lalau, Lugduni Batavorum.
Tschudi, J.J. 1838. Classification der Batrachier, mit Berticksichtigung der fossilen Thiere
dieser Abtheilung der Reptilien. Mémoires de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de
Neuchatel, 2: 1-99, pls 1-6.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(4) December 2011 301
OPINION 2286 (Case 3509)
Cetonia squamosa Gory & Percheron, 1833 (currently Aethiessa
squamosa; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved
Abstract. The Commission has conserved the specific name Cetonia squamosa Gory
& Percheron, 1833 by ruling that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior
homonym of C. squamosa Lefebvre, 1827 (currently Protaetia (Netocia) squamosa,
also CETONIIDAE), endemic in southern Italy including Sicily.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CETONIIDAE; Protaetia squamosa; Aethiessa
squamosa; flower chafers; Southern Italy; Sicily; North Africa.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name squamosa Gory &
Percheron, 1833, as published in the binomen Cetonia squamosa, is not invalid
by reason of being a junior primary homonym of sguamosa Lefebvre, 1827, as
published in the binomen Cetonia squamosa.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) squamosa Lefebvre, 1827, as published in the binomen Cetonia squamosa;
(b) squamosa Gory & Percheron, 1833, as published in the binomen Cetonia
squamosa, with the endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of being a
junior primary homonym of sqguamosa Lefebvre, 1827, as published in the
binomen Cetonia squamosa, as ruled in (1) above.
History of Case 3509
An application to conserve the specific name Cetonia squamosa Gory & Percheron,
1833 by ruling that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior homonym of C.
squamosa Lefebvre, 1827 (currently Protaetia (Netocia) squamosa, also CETONIIDAE,
endemic in southern Italy including Sicily) was received from Ignazio Sparacio
(Palermo, Italy) on 30 November 2009. After correspondence the case was published
in BZN 67: 133-136 (2010). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were
published on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on this case.
Decision of the Commission
On | June 2011 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals
publ